People Ex Rel. Oak Hill Cemetery Ass'n v. Pratt

29 N.E. 7, 129 N.Y. 68, 41 N.Y. St. Rep. 244, 84 Sickels 68, 1891 N.Y. LEXIS 1143
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 1, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 29 N.E. 7 (People Ex Rel. Oak Hill Cemetery Ass'n v. Pratt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People Ex Rel. Oak Hill Cemetery Ass'n v. Pratt, 29 N.E. 7, 129 N.Y. 68, 41 N.Y. St. Rep. 244, 84 Sickels 68, 1891 N.Y. LEXIS 1143 (N.Y. 1891).

Opinion

Earl, J.

The relator, The Oak Hill Cemetery Association, complains that its land, situated in the city of Bochester, was illegally assessed in the year 1890, and it has instituted this proceeding to procure the assessment to be stricken from the assessment-roll as illegal and unauthorized. It was incorporated under the act, chapter 133 of the Laws of 1847, on the 16th day of March, 1889. At that time there was an ordinance of the city of Bochester passed in 1887, prohibiting the burial of dead human bodies within the city limits, except in certain cemeteries specified. On the 19th day of March, 1889, that ordinance was amended so as to authorize the burial of the dead in the relator’s cemetery, and thereafter, and while that ordinance was in force, it took a conveyance of fifty-four and one-half acres of land situated within the city limits. On the 2d day of May, 1889, the ordinance was again amended so as to prohibit the burial of the dead in any cemetery within the city limits, except in certain cemeteries named, among which was not the relator’s, and thus thereafter, assuming the validity of the ordinance, no burials could be made in the cemetery.

We must assume that no body has been buried in this cerne» tery, and the important question for us to determine is whether the relator’s land, under the act of 1847 is exempt from taxation, although, so long as the ordinance remains in force as at present framed, no burials can be made therein.

We have no doubt that the relator was properly incorporated. It was not obliged to obtain the consent of the city of Boches» ter to its incorporation, nor, as has been contended on the part of the defendants, was it obliged to obtain the consent of the supervisors of the county of Monroe. The acts, chapter 280 of the Laws of 1852, chapter 238 of the Laws of 1854, chapter 164 of the Laws of 1871, and chapter 389 of the Laws of 1889, to which our attention has been called, do not relate *72 to cemeteries in the county of Monroe, and relate only to the counties mentioned in those acts.

We have no doubt that the common council had power to pass the ordinance prohibiting the burial of the dead in this cemetery. "Under the charter of the city (Laws of 1880, chap. 14, § 40), it is provided that the common council shall have potver to make, modify and repeal such ordinances, by-laws and regulations as it shall deem reasonable within the said city for the following purposes; ” and among the purposes specified is “ to regulate the burial of the dead.” Under the power to regulate, the common council could prohibit the burial of the dead within the city limits. (Cronin v. People, 82 N. Y. 318.)

This ordinance' is a police regulation which the legislature could authorize the common council to pass. (Brick Church v. Mayor, etc., 5 Cow. 538; Coates v. Mayor, etc., 7 id. 583; Matter of Ryers, 72 N. Y. 1.)

It is immaterial that at the time the relator took the conveyance of its land it was lawful to use it for cemetery purposes and to bury the dead therein. The power possessed by the common council to regulate the burial of the dead is a continuing power, and it may be exercised in its discretion from time to time as the public health and welfare may require. So, we have no doubt that so long as the ordinance remains in force no dead body can be buried in this cemetery, and yet we reach the conclusion that its land cannot be taxed under the .law of 1841. Section 1 of that act provides that any number of peí sons residing in this state, not less than seven, who shall desire to form an association for the purpose “ of procuring and holding lands to be used exclusively for a cemetery, or place for the burial of the dead,” may form a corporation as provided in that and the two following sections. Section 4 provides that any association incorporated under the act may take by purchase or devise, and hold .within the county in which the certificate of its incorporation is recorded, not exceeding two hundred acres of land, to be held and occupiéd exclusively as a cemetery for the burial of the dead, and further provides that “ such land, or such parts thereof as may *73 from, time to time be required for that purpose, shall be surveyed and subdivided into lots or plots of such size as the trustees may direct, with such avenues, paths, alleys and walks as the trustees deem proper; and a map or maps of such surveys shall be filed in the clerk’s office of the county in which the land shall be situated.” These surveys and subdivisions and maps thus authorized may be made from time to time, ■and all this is to be done before cemetery lots can be sold, and the lots are to be sold according to these surveys and maps. The section also provides that any association incorporated under the act may hold personal property, not to exceed $5,000, besides what may arise from the sale of lots. Section 7, as amended by the act, chapter 108 of the Laws of 1879, provides that, “ All lots or plots of ground designated on the maps filed as aforesaid, and numbered as separate lots by the -corporation, shall be indivisible, but may be held and owned in undivided shares. * * * One-half, at least, of the proceeds of all sales of lots or plots shall be first appropriated to the payment of the purchase-money of the lands acquired by the association, until the whole purchase-money'shall be paid and the residue thereof to preserving, improving and embellishing the said cemetery grounds and the avenues or roads leading thereto, and to defraying the incidental expenses of the cemetery establishment. And after the payment of the purchase-money, and the debts contracted therefor, and for surveying and laying out the land, the proceeds of all future Bales shall be applied to the improvement, embellishment and preservation of such cemetery, and for incidental expenses, and to no other purpose or object unless expressly authorized by law,” etc. Section 10 provides that “ the cemetery lands and property of any association, formed pursuant to this act, shall be exempt from all public taxes, rates and assessments, and shall not be liable to be sold on execution, or be applied in payment of debts due from any individual proprietor.” Section 11 provides that “ whenever the said land shall be laid oif into lots or plots, or any of them shall be transferred to individual holders, and after there shall have been an inter *74 ment in a lot or plot so transferred, such lot or plot, from the time of such first interment, shall forever thereafter be inalienable, and shall, upon the death of the holder or proprietor thereof, descend to the heirs at law of such holder or proprietor and to their heirs at law forever.”

It is thus seen, by this brief review of the provisions of the-act, that the land of the relator is held exclusively for cemetery purposes, and that it cannot he devoted to or used for any other purpose. It has no power to sell any of its land except to persons who desire it for burial purposes, and all of its land,, the moment it acquires it, and before a dead body is buried therein, is absolutely exempt from all taxation. The cemetery land of such a corporation, not only, but all its property, is-thus exempt.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pinelawn Cemetery v. Cesare
64 A.D.2d 607 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Pinelawn Cemetery v. Cesare
90 Misc. 2d 736 (New York Supreme Court, 1977)
United States Columbarium Co. v. Tax Commission
19 Misc. 2d 256 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Memorial Hills Ass'n v. Sequoia Investment Corp.
320 P.2d 567 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
C. A. Wagner Construction Co. v. City of Sioux Falls
27 N.W.2d 916 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1947)
State v. Ritschel
20 N.W.2d 673 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1945)
Springfield, L. I., Cemetery Society v. City of New York
2 N.E.2d 48 (New York Court of Appeals, 1936)
Moritz v. United Brethrens Church
199 N.E. 29 (New York Court of Appeals, 1935)
Lombardo v. City of Dallas
73 S.W.2d 475 (Texas Supreme Court, 1934)
Wojtkowiak v. Evangelical Lutheran St. John's Church
236 A.D. 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)
Wojtkowiak v. Evangelical Lutheran St. John's Church
142 Misc. 264 (New York Supreme Court, 1931)
Jewish Consumptives' Relief Society v. Town of Woodbury
230 A.D. 228 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1930)
Pomfret Manor Cemetery Co. v. City of Sunbury
4 Pa. D. & C. 147 (Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas, 1923)
Willerup v. Village of Hempstead
120 Misc. 485 (New York Supreme Court, 1923)
Hope Cemetery Ass'n v. Rose
117 Misc. 457 (New York Supreme Court, 1921)
In re Chauncey
106 Misc. 534 (New York Supreme Court, 1919)
Huston v. City of Des Moines
176 Iowa 455 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1916)
Union Cemetery Ass'n v. Kansas City
161 S.W. 261 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Ritter v. Couch
76 S.E. 428 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1912)
State ex rel. City of St. Paul v. District Court
131 N.W. 327 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 N.E. 7, 129 N.Y. 68, 41 N.Y. St. Rep. 244, 84 Sickels 68, 1891 N.Y. LEXIS 1143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-oak-hill-cemetery-assn-v-pratt-ny-1891.