Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1886

Evergreen Cemetery Ass'n v. Beecher

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided February 19, 1886 · Pardee

53 Conn. 551; 5 A. 353; 1886 Conn. LEXIS 6

Cases that cite this one

28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Kelo v. City of New London (Conn. 2004)
Memphis State Line Railroad v. Forest Hill Cemetery Co. (Tenn. 1906)
Rivera v. Ingentio, No. Lpl-Cv-97-0479186s (Sep. 29, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
Carofano v. City of Bridgeport (Conn. 1985)
Gohld Realty Co. v. City of Hartford (Conn. 1954)
Suttles v. Hill Crest Cemetery Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 1952)
Stubblefield v. Peoples Bank of Bloomington (Ill. 1950)
Parker v. Fidelity Union Trust Company (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1944)
Fitzgerald v. East Lawn Cemetery, Inc. (Conn. 1940)
Broderick v. McGuire (Conn. 1934)
Hollywood Cemetery Assn. v. Powell (Cal. 1930)
McGowan v. Town of Milford (Conn. 1926)
Forestvale Cemetery Ass'n v. Helena Cemetery Ass'n (Mont. 1921)
Great Western Natural Gas & Oil Co. v. Hawkins (Ind. Ct. App. 1903)
Board of Health v. Van Hoesen (Mich. 1891)
Hatfield v. Antonino Pontiac-Buick-Gmc Truck, No. 108084 (Dec. 20, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
Fairlawns Cemetery v. Zoning Comm. Town of Bethel (Connecticut Superior Court 1949)
Attorney-General ex rel. Bliss v. Linden Cemetery Ass'n (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1919)
Wulftange v. Proprietors of the Cemetery (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County 1913)
Town of Fairfield v. Southport National Bank (Conn. 1904)
Rockingham County Light Power Co. v. Hobbs. (N.H. 1904)
George v. Cypress Hills Cemetery (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1898)
Farneman v. Mount Pleasant Cemetery Ass'n (Ind. 1893)
Westfield Cemetery Association v. Danielson (Conn. 1892)
Proprietors of the Cemetery v. Mayor of Cambridge (Mass. 1889)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Pardee, J.

This is a complaint asking leave to take land for cemetery purposes by right of eminent domain. The case has been reserved for our advice.

The plaintiff is the owner of a cemetery, and desires to enlarge it by taking several adjoining pieces of land, each owned by a different person, and has made these owners joint defendants1. Because of this joinder they demur.. But we think that it is in harmony with our practice in analogous proceedings and with the spirit of the Practice Act, and that it promotes speedy, complete, and inexpensive justice, without placing any obstruction in the way of any defendant in protecting his rights. Each carries his. own burden onlyhe is not made to carry that of any of his associates. Therefore the complaint, so far forth as this objection is concerned, is sufficient.

The safety of the living requires the burial of the dead in proper time and place; and, inasmuch as it may so happen that no individual may be willing to sell land for such use, of necessity there must remain to the public the right to acquire and use it under such regulations as a proper respect for the memory of the dead and the feelings of survivors demands. In order to secure for burial places dur*553mg a period extending indefinitely into the future that degree of care universally demanded, the legislature permits associations to exist with power to discharge in behalf and for the benefit of the public the duty of providing, maintaining and protecting them. The use of land by them for this purpose does not cease to be a public use because they require varying sums for rights to bury in different localities; not even if the cost of the right is the practical exclusion of some. Corporations take land by right of eminent domain primarily for the benefit of the public, incidentally for the benefit of themselves. As a rule men are not allowed to ride in ears, or pass along turnpikes, or cross toll-bridges, or have grain ground at the mill, without making compensation. u One man asks and pays for a single seat in a car; another for a special train; all have rights; each pays in proportion to his use; and some are excluded because of their inability to pay for any use ; nevertheless it remains a public use .as long as all persons have the same measure of right for the same measure of money.

But it is a matter of common knowledge that there are many cemeteries which are strictly private; in which the public have not, and can not acquire, the right to bury. Clearly the proprietors of these cannot take land for such continued private use by right of eminent domain. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is an association duly organized under the laws 'of this state for the purpose of establishing a burying ground ; that it now owns one; that it desires to enlarge it; and that such enlargement is necessary and proper. There is no allegation that the land which it desires to take for such enlargement is for the public use in the sense indicated in this opinion.

Therefore the Superior Court is advised that for the reason that the complaint does not set out any right in the plaintiffs to acquire title to the land of the defendants otherwise than by their voluntary deed, the demurrer must be sustained.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.