Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

IGNATOWSKI v. ST. MARYS POLISH CATHOLIC CEMETERY CO. ET AL. (07/14/53)

July 14, 1953

IGNATOWSKI
v.
ST. MARYS POLISH CATHOLIC CEMETERY CO. ET AL.



COUNSEL

Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd, George B. Balmer and Snyder, Balmer & Kershner, Reading, for appellant.

Mark C. McQuillen and George M. Manderbach, Reading, Gerald Ronon and James E. Gallagher, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellees.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Gunther and Wright, JJ.

Author: Gunther

[ 174 Pa. Super. Page 53]

GUNTHER, Judge.

Frank Ignatowski, appellant, brought this suit in equity against St. Mary's Polish Catholic Cemetery and the Reverend John Mickun, Rector of St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church. Later, at the instance of the court, Dennis Cardinal Dougherty, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, who held title to the property of St. Mary's Cemetery, was named additional defendant. When Archbishop O'Hara succeeded Cardinal Dougherty as Archbishop of Philadelphia, he was substituted as additional defendant.

Appellant's mother, Amelia Ignatowski, purchased a lot in St. Mary's Cemetery in 1925. She received a certificate granting her 'the privilege of burial * * * subject to the Rules and Regulations that have been, or may be adopted from time to time, and to the laws, usages and discipline of the R. C. Church, in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, relating to sepulture. * * *' Father Mickun, as manager of the cemetery, has required since 1943 that interment must be made in a concrete vault provided by the cemetery. When Amelia Ignatowski died, in January of 1949, plaintiff refused to buy the vault offered to him by Father Mickun; he buried the remains in a different cemetery, using another vault

[ 174 Pa. Super. Page 54]

    of his own choice, then brought this suit to enjoin defendants from interfering with the interment of his mother in her lot at St. Mary's. The learned chancellor concluded that the regulation 'that all graves must be vaulted with cement vaults furnished by the management, is reasonable and valid.' A final decree dismissing the bill was entered by the court September 22, 1952. Plaintiff appealed.

Those charged with the maintenance and supervision of a cemetery may impose reasonable regulations for the benefit of all lot holders. A regulation is reasonable if it promotes safe and efficient administration, protects all of the lot holders by preserving their lots, and does so without serious interference in matters of personal or familial concern in the conduct of the funeral and the interment. Cedar Hill Cemetery Company v. Lees, 22 Pa. Super. 405; Campbell v. Neshannock Presbyterian Church, 153 Pa. Super. 246, 33 A.2d 33. This regulatory power is not unlimited; it does not include, for example, the right to impose upon those owning lots the obligation to endow, at substantial expense, a 'perpetual care' fund. Slifer v. Greenmount Cemetery Company, 164 Pa. Super. 534, 67 A.2d 584. The question before us, therefore, is whether or not this particular regulation is a reasonable one.

In its opinion dismissing plaintiff's exceptions to the chancellor's decree nisi, the learned court below said: 'The vestments of the corpse including the clothing wherein it is attired, and the casket wherein it is deposited have * * * always been considered an incident necessarily attached to the rights of burial. It appears to us that the vault is something entirely different. * * *' This court cites Campbell v. Neshannock Presbyterian Church, supra, in which we said, 153 Pa. Super. at page 249, 33 A.2d at page 35: 'It could hardly make any difference to lot owners whether the lowering device, tent, and artificial grass are chosen by the corporation or by the funeral director; that is not

[ 174 Pa. Super. Page 55]

    a matter of vital importance.' The court below concludes that this proposition 'is equally true if we substitute for the words, 'lowering device, tent and artificial grass', the words, 'concrete vaults'.' We do not agree with this conclusion. We believe, on the contrary, that the selection of a vault is a personal matter, differing not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.