Court Opinion

ID: 9565155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:15:51.619768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:26.187209
License: Public Domain

Atkinson, Presiding Justice,
dissenting. While I concur in the ruling that the company is not obligated to set aside an additional trust fund, I dissent from other rulings as follows:
As to the first paragraph of the decree, the right to plant and cultivate flowers and shrubbery on their lots is granted under condition 10 of the deed. The evidence shows that lot owners did so years ago with approval of the superintendent; and there being no evidence to show that such were now “detrimental, unsightly, or inconvenient,” this paragraph of the decree was fully authorized.
I think that the third paragraph of the decree was authorized. The company had for many years permitted and encouraged owners of lots to beautify them with flowers and other plants. They had operated a horticultural department, and to encourage owners to beautify their lots sold flowers and shrubs and planted them upon these lots. To induce owners to púrchase them, water faucets had been installed within 100 feet of each lot for their care and preservation. This was the standard of maintenance set by the company and existing when owners bought lots. There was evidence to show that when this dispute arose, in order to require the lot owners to accede to their plan of leveling off all lots and removing all objects except grass, the company, in order to prevent the growing of flowers and other plants, arbitrarily removed these faucets. Nor was this portion of the decree a mandatory injunction. Manry v. First National Bank of Barnesville, 195 Ga. 163, 166 (8) (23 S. E. 2d, 662); Westbrook v. Comer, 197 Ga. 433 (6) (29 S. E. 2d, 574).
The fourth paragraph of the decree was authorized by con*130dition 10 of the deed, which provided: “Headstones . . must not exceed six inches in height above the surface of the ground.” This could mean nothing except that a headstone six inches in height was permitted under the terms of the deed. Lot owners having placed headstones not more than six inches above the ground have complied with the terms of their deeds, and the company has no right or authority to now remove or alter them to ground level.
As to the fifth paragraph of the decree, there was evidence that dances were permitted in the administration building which was on the cemetery premises. There is no specific provision in the deed prohibiting dances within the confines of the cemetery. But considering the purpose and terms of the deed along with the fact that the grantor is the operator of a public cemetery and each lot is one of many forming a single unit under one general management, it seems clear that the operator has an obligation to owners of lots therein to refrain from having or permitting such frivolity as dancing with its accompanying music. The agreement for maintenance, when considered in connection with the purposes and uses of the lots conveyed, covers more than the mere physical or material objects. Maintenance of a proper decorum and dignity within the cemetery is just as much their obligation as the maintenance of the driveways or the surface-water control. Cemeteries are hallowed and sacred ground and people have an inherent respect for the dead. Were this not true, there would be no cemeteries, nor cemetery companies. I think that the trial judge properly enjoined the company from conducting, allowing, or permitting dances in the administration building.
As to the sixth paragraph of the decree, as already stated in the first paragraph of this dissent, I do not think that the company can be required to set aside an additional trust fund sufficient to create an income to care for any increased cost of maintaining the cemetery. However, under condition 18 of the deed, it is their duty and not the duty of the lot owners, to maintain them. It is there stated that the purchaser of the lots “shall not hereafter be chargeable with the cost of any such maintenance and care of said lots.” I can not agree with the view taken in the majority opinion, that the company’s liability *131for maintenance is limited to the income received from the trust fund. While this condition of the deed states that they have a trust fund, there is nothing therein that limits their liability for maintenance to the income from this fund, but on the contrary it specifically provides that the purchaser would not be chargeable with any cost of maintenance. Accordingly, it is the duty of the company to maintain the lots at its own expense if the income from the trust fund is insufficient so to do.
From what is said above, I do not think that the case should be reversed, but it should be affirmed with direction that the portion of the decree requiring the creation of a trust fund be stricken.
Mr. Justice Head concurs in this dissent.