Court Opinion

ID: 9526485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:18:37.265043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:14.371901
License: Public Domain

Bushnell, J.
The several plaintiffs aré “lot owners” in the Bose Hill cemetery of East China township in St. Clair county. The individual defendants are members of the township board and board of health. Each board was joined as a defendant.
In 1906, the township board of health acquired title to certain property which was added to and made a part of the cemetery. On June 24, 1948, at a meeting of the township board, at which Supervisor Snodgrass, Justices Marsa and Uppleger, Treasurer Mc-Causland, and Cleric Garliclc were present, the following resolution was adopted:
“Motion by Justice Uppleger and supported by Justice Marsa that we carry out the road plan as discussed, that we furnish gravel and spread on East China township highway where needed for repair and build up providing the county will furnish the labor and machinery to grade and ditch and prepare the road beds for the gravel. This gravel to be taken out of the rear end of the cemetery and the ground to be leveled and graded after removal of gravel.”
Thereafter, 5,354 yards of gravel were taken from the unoccupied part of the cemetery and used on the township roads, leaving an excavation of irregular shape of varying depth with a maximum of 7 feet. *468No burials had been made in the rear end of the cemetery, and it is still unused and unimproved land. The grave nearest the excavation is about 100 feet away.
Plaintiffs sought equitable relief from what they claim was the illegal action of the board and irreparable damage to the cemetery. They asked the court to restrain the removal of gravel and the refilling of the excavation pending an accounting by defendants of any moneys received by reason of the removal and sale of gravel. They also asked the court to order the rehabilitation of the cemetery and its restoration, together with payment of damages suffered by plaintiffs.
A temporary restraining order was issued, but dissolved after a hearing on the merits and the finding by the court that defendants had not acted in an unlawful manner and that plaintiffs have failed to prove any illegal sale of gravel or damage to their cemetery lots. Plaintiffs have appealed from a decree dismissing their bill of complaint.
In substance, these same questions are argued here. In addition, plaintiffs claim that the action of the township board is illegal because the township board of health has exclusive control over the matter. Defendants argue that the trial judge was correct in holding that the cemetery “lot owners” were not entitled to a money decree and that the township board which, by statute,  acts also as the township board of health, possessed authority to remove gravel for township use from the unused portion of the cemetery. Their brief states that since the decree was entered “the theretofore enjoined leveling and grading of the unused cemetery lands in question was promptly accomplished by the defendant township officers.”
*469The township board of health holds the fee of township cemetery lands in trust for the township. CL 1948, § 327.6 (Stat Ann § 14.66). Holders of certificates of purchase from a township board of health acquire only the right of burial in lots in township cemeteries and not title thereto. Rowley v. Laingsburg Cemetery Association, 215 Mich 673, and authorities therein cited at page 676. Also, Wetherby v. City of Jackson, 264 Mich 146.
In discussing- the right of a vendor to foreclose a land contract against a cemetery corporation, the Court in Richmond Hills Memorial Park Ass’n v. Richardson, 275 Mich 403, 407, approved the rule stated in 11 CJ, p 58, § 19, which reads in part:
“A cemetery corporation may sell such portion of its lands as are not used for burial purposes so long as lot owners are not deprived of the use of, or access to, their lots and the integrity of the cemetery is not interfered with.”
Any board of health in this State may sell and convey any real estate, the fee of which is vested in it, but it may not sell lands which are or have been in actual use as a cemetery or burial ground, except by order of the circuit court. CL 1948, § 327.301 (Stat Ann § 14.201).
The township board is the board of health of the township. CL 1948, § 327.1 (Stat Ann § 14.61). As such it could have sold all of the unused portion' of the cemetery. Hence, it must follow that it could also use the gravel from such portion upon the township roads. There is no proof in this record of any other disposition of gravel.
Plaintiffs argue that the township action was illegal because the clerk did not keep a record “in a book to be provided for that purpose at the expense of the township.” The statute to which plaintiffs refer (CL 1948, § 327.1 [Stat Ann § 14.61]) does not *470require that the records of the proceedings of the board of health be kept in a separate book from that' of the proceedings of the township board. The record does not contain any proof of the expenditure or receipt of money by the board for cemetery purposes.
The gravel was removed by trucks driven through the used portion of the cemetery. We can understand why plaintiffs were concerned about this affront to their feelings and aesthetic tastes. This does not, however, permit the conclusion that the board deliberately ignored the proprieties respecting the resting places of the dead of their community. We must assume that it was their intention to do this without causing any permanent damage to the appearance of the cemetery proper, and we accept the implication in defendants’ brief that any damage resulting from the removal of gravel no longer exists.
On review de novo we find nothing in the record which requires disagreement with the conclusion of the trial judge that:
“There is no evidence that the board illegally sold any gravel or that any cemetery gravel was used by the board for private purposes. Also, there is no evidence that the lots of plaintiffs have been damaged or the land will have been damaged for cemetery purposes when the resolution is fully carried out.
“Many fair-minded people would probably disagree with the wisdom and judgment of the board’s resolution. Many others would probably approve it as an expeditious way to obtain scarce gravel and build up the roads at minimum expense. These are questions.a court of equity has no power to solve or decide because the law gives wide discretionary power to municipal authorities when it comes to the business of the municipality. Where there is no evidence of corrupt conduct or illegality the courts can*471not interfere with the actions of elected officials. There is no such evidence here.”'
Because of this conclusion it is unnecessary to determine whether plaintiffs have a legal right to recover damages, since there was no proof of damages to their lots.
The decree dismissing plaintiffs’ hill of complaint is affirmed, but without costs for the same reason assigned by the trial judge in denying costs below, i.e., “this is a good-faith suit presenting public questions only.”
Boyles, North, Dethmers, Butzel, Carr, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred with Bushnell, J.