Silverwood v. Latrobe
| Decision Date | 15 March 1888 |
| Citation | 13 A. 161,68 Md. 620 |
| Parties | SILVERWOOD v. LATROBE ET AL. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city.
William Silverwood, complainant, filed a bill to enjoin John H. B Latrobe and others, officers of the corporation known as the "Proprietors of Greenmount Cemetery," defendants from prohibiting his servants from repairing and improving a lot owned by him in such cemetery. From an order of the court below refusing the relief asked complainant appeals.
J V. L. Findlay, for appellant.
S. T. Wallis, for appellees.
The appellant is the owner of a lot in Greenmount cemetery having paid for said lot and received from the proprietors a certificate of ownership, which is dated June 17, 1865. By the act of 1837, c. 164, an association of citizens residing in Baltimore city became incorporated by the name of the "Proprietors of the Greenmount Cemetery." The eighth section of the act provides "that every lot conveyed in said cemetery shall be held by the proprietor for the purpose of sepulture alone, and for none other, as real estate, and shall not be subject to attachment or execution." The land is conveyed by an instrument in writing under seal to William Silverwood, his heirs and assigns, forever, for the purposes of sepulture alone, with the right of way to and from the lot so conveyed along the avenues, walks, paths, and ways of said cemetery. By the second clause of the instrument thus conveying this property the right is given to the grantee of the lot "to erect stones, monuments, or sepulchral structures therein, and to cultivate trees, shrubs, and plants in the same." By the third and fourth clauses the grantors have secured a right of entry for the purpose of removing anything placed on the lot by the grantee which may have become dangerous, inconvenient, or detrimental, or which may be deemed by the president or managers offensive or improper; but there is no reservation of a right of entry by the grantors for any other purpose. During a period extending from June, 1865, to April, 1887, the appellant had exercised his right to plant and cultivate trees, shrubs, and flowers in his lot, and had employed skillful and competent persons of his own selection to do this work. But early in the last-mentioned year the proprietors passed an order prohibiting any person other than a lot-holder, or a member of his or her family, from doing any work in the cemetery except by a permit from the superintendent. In this order the board of managers declare their intention to take entire charge, through their employes, of all work that may be necessary to the proper care of all lots in the cemetery; and authorize the superintendent to make arrangements with the lot-holders for the particular care of their respective lots in order to carry out their intention thus declared. The appellant's agent, sent to cultivate his lot, having been excluded by the superintendent, a bill of complaint was filed in the circuit court of Baltimore city asking for an injunction to restrain the said board of managers and the said superintendent from further interference with the plaintiff's right, by obstructing or denying to his agents free access to his said lot, for the purpose of improving or repairing the same. A decree having been passed by the court below, refusing the relief asked for and dismissing the bill, the questions in controversy have been brought into this court by an appeal. The act of 1837, c. 164, creating this corporation, does not delegate to it any political powers. The right "to make such by-laws, rules, and regulations as they may deem proper for...
To continue reading
Request your trial