|
§65-13 CH. 65. CEMETERIES §65-13
<br /> 6
<br /> Due care shall be taken to do said work in a proper and decent
<br /> manner, and, if necessary, to furnish suitable coffins or boxes for
<br /> reinterring such remains. Due care shall also be taken to remove,
<br /> protect and replace all tombstones or other markers, so as to leave
<br /> such tombstones or other markers in as good condition as that prior
<br /> to disinterment. Provided that in cases where the remains are to be
<br /> moved to a perpetual care cemetery or other cemetery where
<br /> upright tombstones are not permitted, a suitable replacement
<br /> marker shall be provided.
<br /> (h) Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to grant
<br /> or confer the power or authority of eminent domain, or to impair
<br /> the right of the next of kin of a decedent to remove or cause the
<br /> removal, at his or their expense, of the remains or grave of such
<br /> decedent. (1919,c. 245; C.S., ss. 5030, 5030(a);Ex. Sess. 1920,c. 46;
<br /> 1927, c. 23, s. 1; c. 175, s. 1; 1937, c. 3; 1947, cc. 168, 576; 1961, c.
<br /> 457; 1963, c. 915, s. 1; 1965, c. 71; 1971, c. 797, s. 1; 1977, c. 311, s.
<br /> Local Modification. — Orange: tombstones,see§ 14-148.As to interfer-
<br /> 1963, c. 915, s. 11/2. ence with graveyards, see §§ 14-144,
<br /> Cross References.—As to removal 14-149.
<br /> of or interference with monuments and
<br /> CASE NOTES
<br /> This section is much broader than disinterment of a body. The statute
<br /> the older C.S.5030,and reflects a rec- speaks to the situation where a body had
<br /> ognition of the need for broad authority been properly interred,but for some rea-
<br /> by church authority to meet the needs of son justified by the public interest or by
<br /> a growing membership in relocating some compelling private interests it is
<br /> graves which would restrict that growth. necessary to effect a disinterment, re-
<br /> Singletary v. McCormick, 36 N.C. App. moval,and reinterment.This statute no-
<br /> 597, 244 S.E.2d 731 (1978). where provides for the situation where
<br /> The phrase"in order to"in subdi- there has been an improper interment.
<br /> vision (a)(2) of this section is synony- Strickland v. Tant, 41 N.C. App. 534,
<br /> mous with the phrase"as the means to." 255 S.E.2d 325, cert. denied, 298 N.C.
<br /> Singletary v. McCormick, 36 N.C. App. 304, 259 S.E.2d 917 (1979).
<br /> 597, 244 S.E.2d 731 (1978). Action for Removal of Grave in Vi-
<br /> Relocation of Street to Enlarge olation of Former Provision. — See
<br /> Church Facility.—Though graves pro- King v. Smith, 236 N.C. 170, 72 S.E.2d
<br /> posed to be relocated were within the 425 (1952).
<br /> area of a relocated street,the street was The building of a new vestry room
<br /> to be relocated"as the means to"expand of a church to be used with the one as
<br /> or enlarge an existing church facility, presently located in relation to the use of
<br /> and therefore relocation of the graves the choir,etc.,comes within the purview
<br /> was permissible. Singletary v. of the statute permitting the removal of
<br /> McCormick, 36 N.C. App. 597, 244 the bodies buried in the churchyard by
<br /> S.E.2d 731 (1978). the proper authorities of the church,
<br /> Section Not Exclusive Grounds for when necessary or expedient to do so,in
<br /> Disinterment.—This statute does not carrying out the arrangement. Mayo v.
<br /> provide the exclusive grounds for the Bragaw,191 N.C.427,132 S.E.1(1926).
<br /> 8
<br />
|