Smith v. Myers

ITrner, <T., delivered the opinion of the Court. The hill of complaint in this case alleges in effect that the plaint ill is a member of Wilson’s Methodist Episcopal Church, located near Long Green Postoffice, in Baltimore Comity; that the defendants, as trustees of the church, own a small tract of land, adjacent to the church building, which has been devoted to cemetery purposes; that in the month, of July, 1914, the plaintiff purchased, a lot in the cemetery from an a,gent of the trustees, duly authorized to. represent them in the sale of burial lots; that the lot selected by the plaintiff was partly covered by an old church building, which had not been used as a church for many years, and was in a dilapidated condition, but the plaintiff was assured by the agent that the old building was to be removed and the ground occupied by it used as part of the cemetery, and that relying upon this assurance the plaintiff bought the lot for the sum of twelve dollars and caused to he interred there the body of his mother-in-law, whose death was. the immediate occasion of the purchase. It is then averred that some of the trustees have recently announced their intention not to raze the old church building, but to remodel and repair it, and to use it as an amusement ball to be rented out for various purposes of entertainment, and it is charged that this, if permitted, will not only deprive the plaintiff of a portion of the lot he bought and paid for, but will be a serious invasion of the privacy and quietude be is entitled' to have maintained for the resting place of Ms dead. Tt was further alleged that the plaintiff has protested against the proposed action of the trustees, hut without avail.

An injunction was prayed by the bill to restrain the trustees from remodeling or repairing the old building, and from using it as a place of public entertainment or amusement, and to enjoin them to raze and remove the building from the portion ⁶⁶ of the plaintiff’s lot which it occupies. The Court below granted a preliminary injunction for the purposes mentioned in the prayer for relief, except as to the removal of the building. In their answer to the bill of complaint the trustees denied that the plaintiff’s burial lot had been sold to him upon, the assurance that the old building would be removed, 'and they aver that their agent for the sale of lots in the cemetery had no authority to make such, a promise. They state that the lot sold to the plaintiff is twenty feet wide and twenty-four feet long, except for a small triangular strip-, eighteen inches in its greatest breadth, and eighteen and a half feet in length, which is cut off by the building in controversy.

The answer describes the building as a solid stone structure, which it would cost at least fifteen hundred dollars to replace, and several hundred dollars to remove. While it is conceded to be in a s-tate of disrepair, it is used for the housing of an acetylene gas plant which lights the new church, and also occasionally for church suppers, entertainments and lectures under the supervision of the church authorities. The trustees admit that it is their purpose to repair and remodel the old building, and that this work was in progress when the preliminary injunction was issued, but they deny that they had, or no-w have any intention of renting out the building as an amusement hall, and assert that it will continue to- be used for the “purposes of holding church entertainments, suppers, lectures, etc., all of which will be conducted under the -direct supervision and authority of the trustees, and will be of such a character as can in no way wound the feelings or sense of propriety of any person of ordinary sensibilities.” The testimony offered in the case was in conflict upon the question as to whether the agent who sold the lot to- the plaintiff stated positively that the old building would be removed, or merely expressed the belief that this would sometime be done, but there is no contradiction whatever upon the point that the agent was in fact unauthorized to- bind the trustees to such an agreement. The proof is conclusive that ⁶⁷ the agency was limited to the care of the cemetery and the sale of burial lots.

There was nothing