The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-02-07
TO DIVIDE A
BURIAL LOT.
The Widow of Samuel
Curry Filed a Bill.
ARGUMENTS HEARD TODAY
Other Members of the Family Object
TO the Division.
ARGUMENTS HEARD TODAY
CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENTS.

The equity suit for partition of Caroline
q. Curry vs. Augustus Wright ct al was
heard 10y the Appellate Court today on
bill ana answer. The facts shown by the
pleadings are that the la,e aaron Il. Cur
~. the father OF the late Samuel Ii. Curry
and the father-in law Of Augustus Wright
anu George A. Richards, together with
the Samuel q. Curry who was the has
band Of the complainant, Augustus
Wright and George As Richards pur-
chased a tract of land in Swan Point
cemetery Tor family burial lot taking
the deco in their names as tenants in
common. They improved the lot as n
family burial lot, surrounding IL with
a curDing upon which their names were
cut, and Aaron u. Curry 10 buried there
anu mem bers OF the family of Wright also
buried upon the premises now sought to
be divided.
Counsel for the complainants stated IL
was always the understanding Ietween
the parties that each OF them was entitled
to and that the comlainant was now en-
titled 10 have division OF the burial lot
according TO tho original intention of the
partits. Referring To certain objections
OF the respondents COUNSEL SAID tDat the
objections might have some weight III it
Was proposed TO sell the land sought To be
pprtitioned, but as such was not the case
there could be no possible objection To the
granting OF the prayer Of the bill.
The respondents elaim that the cutting
OF names upon the curoing does not con-
stitute a parol partition of the premises
or an agreement that the lot should be
divided; that the plot was acquired for
the purpose OF "a family burial lot; that
the father of the family said ABron B.
Curry. had planned tnat he should lie in
lot surrounded by his children. This
purpose Of having burial lot, evidently
formed by all the parties at the time of
the purchase, had oeen partially carried
out, Aaron Is. Curry, his daughter and
several of his grandchildreni having besn
buried there, and she respondents further
nrse that IL would be,higtly. offensive TO
the moral sense, after these bodies have
been buried, TO permit the property TO
be made the subject OF partition, and
as neither tenant IN common can toll
what portion of.thc common property is to
be set off TO him until PARTITION has ac-
tuslly been made, IL follows tnat por-
ton of the lot now occupied might be set
OF to the omplainant and the bodies
therein buried be liable TO removal from
their resting places. Property purchased
for n burial ground Is not subject TO par
tition, counsel maintained. and also that
the fact that portion or the original lot
has been sold by unanimous consent can
have no bearing upon the question Of the
right To partition.
The complainant, who Is the widow Of
Samuel q. Curry and has no children to
keep up the interest In her husband $
family, has only the pecuniary interest
in this particular piece Of ground which
has been purchased and set aside az a
family burial ground. by the husband.a and
his family. ana should not be allowed
now. the respondents in conclusion
urged. TO compel the other members Of
the family to lose the benefit Of the i'm
provsment Of the ground. which was laid
out With respect 90 the common occupancy
by the family, for the mere price of one
quarter interest in the whole lot
Van Slyck & Mumford we're counsel
for the com ylainaut and Herbert Almy
nade the argument for tho respondents,
Nat han w. Llttlereld being associated
with him. The case was held for au-
yisement.