Skip to main content
· 5/15/1885

Rosehill Cemetery Co. v. Hopkinson

Citations

  • 114 Ill. 209
  • 29 N.E. 685

Syllabus

<p>1. Cemetery companies—corporate powers—to make by-laws, rules •and regulations—uniformity of application required. Where the charter incorporating a cemetery company provides for a board of managers, who are authorized to lay off the grounds into lots, sell the same, make by-laws, and such rules and regulations for the government of lot owners and visitors as they may deem necessary, they may make such rules and regulations; but they must be reasonable, equa^ in their operation, and uniform in their application to all owners of lots in the cemetery. The managers will have no right to make a rule which will confer a right upon one owner in regard to the improvement of his lot, and deny the same right to another lot owner.</p> <p>2. Such a company being a quasi public corporation, and possessed of the right to condemn property, and invested with other important powers, is bound to exercise its rights and privileges fairly and impartially; and if, through its officers, it attempts to act arbitrarily, or to transcend its powers to the injury of a lot owner, such action may be reviewed and controlled by the courts.</p> <p>3. Same—erecting a uault upon a cemetery lot—rights of the owner— of rules in restriction thereof. If the board of managers of a public cemetery company incorporated by law, have authority, under their charter, to prevent a lot owner from erecting a vault upon his lot, that power can only be exercised by the adoption of a general rule on the subject applicable to every one.</p> <p>4. A rule adopted by the board of managers of an incorporated cemetery company, that “no vault shall be built entirely or partially above ground without permission of the company,” taken in connection with another that no vault shall be constructed in the cemetery until- the designs and specifications of the same, with a diagram of location, shall have been submitted and approved by the board, can not be regarded as prohibiting the erection of a vault; and in the absence of

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • dismissing as moot where the case involved exclusion from the ballot and the election had passed
  • dismissing case involving candidacy for office of county treasurer in primary election because the election date had passed and the issues were therefore moot
  • dismissing case involving candidacy for office of county treasurer in primary election because the election date had passed and the issues were therefore moot
  • determining a case involving a similar timeline had become moot where “the primary election . . . had passed before th[e] case could be put at issue . . . and decided”
  • where relator sought writ of mandate to order that his name be included on primary ballot and where the primary election had passed before the case could be put at issue, the court dismissed the cause as moot

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Craig

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.