United Cemeteries Co. v. Strother
Decision Date | 10 June 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 30444.,30444. |
Citation | 61 S.W.2d 907 |
Parties | UNITED CEMETERIES COMPANY v. JOHN D. STROTHER ET AL., LOUIS A. HARBIN, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Ralph S. Latshaw, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).
John D. Strother, Duvaul P. Strother and Gossett, Ellis, Dietrich & Tyler for appellant.
(1) For proper purposes a cemetery company may mortgage its lands and such mortgage be enforceable by judicial sale in equity for the payment of just debts. The decree below in this case itself justly and reasonably is based upon the equitable jurisdiction of the court to order and decree sale of cemetery property as against a commercial pecuniary purposed cemetery corporation for payment of its debts. Allison v. Cemetery Co., 283 Mo. 424; Wight v. Morgan, 191 U.S. 55, 48 L. Ed. 89; Bliss v. Linden Cemetery Assn., 85 N.J. Eq. 501, 96 Atl. 1001; Ross v. Glenwood Cemetery Assn., 81 App. Div. 357, 81 N.Y. Supp. 779; Lantz v. Buckingham, 11 Abb. Pr. (N.S.) 64; 11 C.J. 58; Sec. 9749, R.S. 1919; Revised Laws 1921, p. 260, sec. 4555, R.S. 1929. (2) It is the ground set aside and used for burial, interment of humans, that is sacred and meant to be exempted by the statutes. The estate of a commercial, created for pecuniary profit, business corporation in land which its vendor and itself obtained on a promise to pay a price for it and could not otherwise have acquired but by creating appellant's vendor's lien or mortgage, is not so sanctified that it may be held without being subjected to judicial sale in equity to pay the unpaid part of such purchase money. The statutes referred to are not unconscionable and only exempt from legal process of attachment and execution and not from the equitable jurisdiction of the court. Wooldridge v. Smith, 243 Mo. 191. Purchase money mortgages and liens are especially and meritoriously regarded in equity. Duke v. Brant, 51 Mo. 221; Fountaine v. Boatmen's Bank, 57 Mo. 552; Babb v. Taylor, 184 S.W. 1028; Jones v. Rush, 156 Mo. 364; Eubank v. Finnell, 118 Mo. App. 535.
Borders, Borders & Warrick for respondents.
A purchase price mortgage on property devoted to cemetery purposes is absolutely void. 5 R.C.L. 235; Trustees of First Evangelical Church v. Walsh, 57 Ill. 363; Wormley v. Wormley, 207 Ill. 411; Boyce v. Kalbaugh, 47 Md. 334; Bitney v. Grim, 73 Ore. 257, 144 Pac. 490; Tracy v. Bittle, 213 Mo. 302, 112 S.W. 45; Hines v. State, 126 Tenn. 1, 149 S.W. 1058; Campbell v. Kansas City, 102 Mo. 326; Kansas City v. Scarritt, 169 Mo. 471; Oakland Cemetery Co. v. Peoples Cemetery Assn., 93 Tex. 569, 57 S.W. 27; Wolford v. Crystal Lake Cemetery Assn., 54 Minn. 440, 56 N.W. 56; First Natl. Bank v. Hazel, 89 N.W. 378; Allison v. Cemetery Caretaking Co., 283 Mo. 424, 223 S.W. 41; Thompson v. Hickey, 8 Abbott, 159; Anderson v. Acheson, 132 Iowa, 744, 110 N.W. 335; Spear v. Locust Wood Cemetery Assn., 72 N.J. Eq. 821, 66 Atl. 1068; Woodland Cemetery Co. v. Ellison, 23 Ky. L.R. 222, 67 S.W. 14; Ross v. Glenwood Cemetery Assn., 81 N.Y. Supp. 779; Brown v. Lutheran Church, 23 Pa. 495.
This appeal was first heard in Division Number One, where separate and divergent opinions were prepared by Commissioners HYDE and STURGIS. Neither opinion being adopted, the cause was on motion of the members of that division transferred to Court en Banc and has here been reargued and submitted.
Upon this final consideration of the case we adopt as the opinion of the court the opinion referred to as prepared by Commissioner STURGIS, which is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Billings v. Paine
...long as the land is used as a cemetery; and the right of sale of the fee owner is restricted accordingly. United Cemeteries Co. v. Strother, 332 Mo. 971, 61 S.W.2d 907, 90 A.L.R. 438. The opinion in Wooldridge, supra, indicates that this right of interment is not strictly an easement. Howev......
- United Cemeteries Co. v. Strother
-
State v. Forest Lawn Lot Owners Ass'n
...S.W. 113, writ refused; Smallwood v. Midfield Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 89 S.W.2d 1086, writ dismissed, and United Cemeteries Co. v. Strother, 332 Mo. 971, 61 S.W.2d 907, 90 A.L.R. 438. The substance of what is said by the courts in all the cited cases is that property once dedicated to cemete......
-
Eugene Pioneer Cemetery Ass'n v. Spencer Butte Lodge No. 9 (I.O.O.F.)
...for cemetery purposes. * * *' See also Wolford v. Crystal Lake Cemetery Ass'n, 54 Minn. 440, 56 N.W. 56; United Cemeteries Co. v. Strother, 332 Mo. 971, 61 S.W.2d 907, 90 A.L.R. 438. The other decision relied on is Dunlap v. Union Lodge No. 15, I.O.O.F., 129 Kan. 287, 282 P. 715. This was a......