Case Name: The Wardens and Vestry of Christ Church vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of Savannah
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1883-01-30
Citations: 69 Ga. 749
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Wardens and Vestry of Christ Church vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of Savannah.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 749–750

Head Matter:
The Wardens and Vestry of Christ Church vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of Savannah.
The city council of Savannah passed the following resolution : “Resolved, that with a view to the preservation of the old cemetery on South Broad street, between Habersham and Lincoln streets, for the purpose it was originally designed, the committee on streets and lanes be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to have the entire wall fronting on Abercorn and South Broad streets removed, and the pavement on Abercorn street widened on a line with said street.” The wardens, etc., of Christ church filed their bill, alleging that they had always been in the legal possession of the cemetery, their title never having been questioned, and no person or persons having ever claimed title as against them; that the dead of their church had been buried in the cemetery, many of the most honored of whom were buried near the present wall on a line with Abercorn street; that their remains and grave stones had remained undisturbed for more than a century; that the wall, as it stood when the bill was ■ filed, had remained for nearly a century, marking the true boundary line of the cemetery, and that the rights of sepulture in said cemetery were granted because the same had been solemnly dedicated-as the burial ground, to remain forever as the secure and undisturbed, resting place of the dead; that the mayor and aldermen of Savannah, pretending that they are authorized to divert a large part of the cemetery from the purposes of its original dedication, passed the resolution above stated, and will, unless restrained, convert the same into a public highway. The chancellor enjoin’ed the defendants from encroaching on the cemetery or appropriating any portion of it for' street purposes, but refused to enjoin them from re- ■ moving the wall and erecting another in its stead, provided there . was no encroachment:
Held, that in this part of the judgment of the court below there was no error.
(«.) The object of the bill being to test-the question of title, and pend ing the litigation to enjoin the city authorities from encroaching in any manner upon the rights of complainants, it was error for the chancellor, on the hearing of the application for injunction, and before a hearing on the merits could be had, to adjudge that there was no title or claim of any kind vested in, the complainants.
January 30, 1883.

Opinion:
«Crawford, Justice.