Cemetery Consultants, Inc. v. Tidewater Funeral Directors Ass'n, Inc., 771178

Decision Date20 April 1979
Docket NumberNo. 771178,771178
Citation219 Va. 1001,254 S.E.2d 61
PartiesCEMETERY CONSULTANTS, INC., T/A Rosewood Memorial Park v. TIDEWATER FUNERAL DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION, INC. Record
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

Harry J. Hicks, Virginia Beach, for appellant.

William R. O'Brien, Virginia Beach (Richard G. Brydges, Brydges, Hudgins, Ege, Burt & O'Brien, Virginia Beach, on brief), for appellee.

Before I'ANSON, C. J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN, POFF and COMPTON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Tidewater Funeral Directors Association, Inc. (TFDA), appellee herein, filed a bill of complaint against appellant, Cemetery Consultants, Inc., t/a Rosewood Memorial Park (Rosewood), seeking to enjoin the enforcement of Rosewood's rules and regulations governing the delivery of burial vaults to the cemetery and the imposition of a $15 charge for the installation and sealing of all burial vaults used in the cemetery unless the vaults were purchased from Rosewood. The chancellor, after an Ore tenus hearing, held, Inter alia, that TFDA had standing to institute this suit and that the rules, regulations, and charges imposed by Rosewood were unreasonable and unenforceable.

Rosewood, a privately owned corporation maintaining a cemetery in the City of Virginia Beach, sells burial plots and rights of sepulcher to the public and provides care for the plots and cemetery environs both before and after burial. By letter dated August 4, 1976, Rosewood notified the funeral directors and vault dealers operating within its trading area that as of August 15, 1976 all vaults in Rosewood would be installed and sealed only by Rosewood's trained and experienced cemetery personnel. The funeral directors and burial vault dealers were directed to deliver each vault to the cemetery's service area where Rosewood's personnel would pick up the vault, place it in the ground and later seal it. They were further informed that a charge of $15 would be made for the rendition of these services, but that such charge would be assessed against the owners of the rights of sepulcher (lot owners) and not against the funeral directors or vault dealers.

TFDA is a corporation organized by licensed funeral directors in the Tidewater Virginia area.

Rosewood contends (1) that TFDA lacked standing to challenge its rules, regulations and the fee imposed; and (2) that under its contracts with the owners of the lots, Rosewood had the right to adopt regulations and charges which are fair and reasonable.

We agree...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • 17TH Street Associates v. Markel Intern. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • June 1, 2005
    ...a contract must be brought in the name of the party in whom the legal interest is vested. Cemetery Consultants, Inc. v. Tidewater Funeral Directors Ass'n, 219 Va. 1001, 1003, 254 S.E.2d 61, 62 (1979). Ordinarily, such an interest is vested only in the promisee or promisor, and only this per......
  • Thorsen v. Richmond Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 2, 2016
    ...of law upon such contract.Thacker v. Hubard , 122 Va. 379, 387, 94 S.E. 929, 931 (1918) ; accord, Cemetery Cons[ultants] v. Tidewater Fun. Dir. , 219 Va. 1001, 1003, 254 S.E.2d 61, 62 (1979). However, “in contracts not under seal , it has been held, for two centuries or more, that any one f......
  • Picture Lake Campground v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • August 13, 1980
    ...§ 1332. 2See Thaxton v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 555 S.W.2d 718, 719-20 (Tenn.1977); Cemetery Consultants, Inc. v. Tidewater Funeral Directors Association, 219 Va. 1001, 254 S.E.2d 61, 62 (1976). The parties are concerned as to the applicable law with respect to Count One of plaintiffs' com......
  • Ward v. Ernst & Young
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • September 17, 1993
    ...court of law upon such contract. Thacker v. Hubard, 122 Va. 379, 387, 94 S.E. 929, 931 (1918); accord, Cemetery Cons. v. Tidewater Fun. Dir., 219 Va. 1001, 1003, 254 S.E.2d 61, 62 (1979). However, "in contracts not under seal, it has been held, for two centuries or more, that any one for wh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT