Hines v. State, 126 Tenn. 1, 149 S.W. 1058 (Tenn. 1911)

Facts

  • In the early 1800s, a landowner set apart and used a small portion of his land as a private family burial ground, and family members were buried there over time.
  • The burial ground contained visible markers and was treated and maintained as a family cemetery.
  • The larger tract was later conveyed outside the family to Walter Hines; the deed contained no express reservation for the burial ground.
  • Descendants sought to reach the cemetery from the nearest public road to visit and care for the graves.
  • Hines refused to allow ingress and egress across his land to the burial ground.
  • The State prosecuted Hines under a statute criminalizing obstruction of access to burial grounds, and he was convicted of a misdemeanor.

Issues

  1. Whether long-used private family burial grounds create continuing burial and access rights that bind subsequent purchasers despite the absence of an express deed reservation.
  2. Whether a fee owner may exclude descendants from accessing such a cemetery, or whether refusal of access violates the burial-access statute.

Decision

  • The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed Hines’s misdemeanor conviction.
  • The court held that once land is definitely set apart and used as a family burial ground, the fee is held subject to a trust-like obligation for burial purposes.
  • Descendants possess rights of burial and reasonable ingress and egress from the nearest public road to visit, maintain, and protect the graves.
  • Subsequent purchasers take subject to these rights because the dedication creates an implied reservation and the visible cemetery puts buyers on notice.
  • Hines’s denial of access unlawfully interfered with protected cemetery access and supported conviction under the statute.
  • Land devoted and used as a burial ground is held by the owner and successors in title in trust for burial purposes and cannot be transferred in a manner that defeats that use.
  • Dedication and use of a family cemetery imply easements for burial and for reasonable access (ingress and egress) to visit and care for graves.
  • An express reservation in the deed is unnecessary; the reservation is implied, and visible graves or markers charge purchasers with notice.
  • Burial lots are not treated as ordinary commercial property and are presumptively excluded from surrounding land sales.
  • Cemetery rights are not extinguished by limitation or adverse possession while graves remain marked or tended so as to show the continuing burial purpose.

Conclusion

The court upheld a conviction for blocking descendants’ access to a family cemetery, ruling that dedication and longstanding use of a burial ground impose implied, continuing burial and access rights that run against later purchasers who take the land with notice of the cemetery’s existence.