Buffalo City Cemetery v. . City of Buffalo
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision.
- Masonic Cemetery Ass'n v. Gamage (9th Cir. 1930)
- Whittemore v. Woodlawn Cemetery (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1902)
- George v. Cypress Hills Cemetery (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1898)
- Ez Achaim Society, Inc. v. Cohen (New York Supreme Court 1958)
- Sockel v. Degel Yehudo Cemetery Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1944)
- In re the Estate of Rosen (New York Surrogate's Court 1940)
- In re the Board of Transportation (New York Supreme Court 1931)
- Cemetery Gardens, Inc. v. Blueweiss (City of New York Municipal Court 1931)
- Clarke v. Keating (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1918)
- Northern Light Lodge, No. 156 v. Town of Monona (Iowa 1917)
- Mount Hope Cemetery Ass'n v. New Mount Hope Cemetery Ass'n (Ill. 1910)
- People v. Otis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1910)
- Anderson v. Acheson (Iowa 1907)
- In re Waldron (R.I. 1904)
- McWhirter v. Newell (Ill. 1903)
- Edwards & Walsh Construction Co. v. Jasper County (Iowa 1902)
- Conger v. Treadway (New York Supreme Court 1889)
- County of Adams v. City of Quincy (Ill. 1889)
- Conger v. Treadway (New York Supreme Court 1888)
- James v. Pine Bluff (Ark. 1887)
- New York Bay Cemetery Co. v. Buckmaster (N.J. 1887)
- Lima v. Cemetery Ass'n (Ohio 1884)
- Wood v. Macon & Brunswick Railroad (Ga. 1882)
- People ex rel. Coppers v. Trustees of St. Patrick's Cathedral (New York Supreme Court 1880)
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
In this case the appellant claims, that if it be held that the respondent had the right to assess the property of the appellant, yet it has not complied with the law in doing it. But one objection is urged, and it is stated upon the points of the appellant’s counsel thus: “The assessment should have been upon the lands of the respective owners, by their known boundaries. The city had no right to assess the *505 whole block to the cemetery, who only owned a portion of it.” As far as we can gather from the printed papers before us (from which are lacking certain plats or maps referred to in the complaint, and in the findings of the court), the owners, other than the appellant here indicated, are the persons to whom respectively, subdivisions of the whole tract of the appellant’s land have been by it conveyed, to be held and used by them for burial purposes. The effect of such conveyance, under the statute from which the plaintiff derives its powers, is we suppose (for no copy of any conveyance is laid before us), no more than to confer upon the holder of a lot a right to use for the purpose of interments. Ho such estate is granted as makes him an owner in such sense as to exclude the general proprietorship of the association. The association remains the owner in general, and holds that relation to the public and to the government, while subject to this, the individual has a right exclusive of any other person to bury upon the subdivided plat assigned to him. He holds a position analogous to that of a pew holder in a house for public worship. It is a right exclusive of any other of the congregation, but subject to the right of the religious corporation, which represents the ownership of the property to the public, and is the legal owner of the fee of the property. This being so, we see no error made by the respondent in assessing the expense of the sidewalk to the whole property, and to the appellant as owner, by one description including the whole.
The other question involved is passed upon in the other case.
The judgment affected should be affirmed, with costs to the respondent.
All concur, except Rapallo, not voting.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.