## Facts

- Around 1855, a rural community began using a portion of privately owned land as a burial ground with the owner’s knowledge and without objection.
- The tract was never formally platted or recorded as a cemetery, but burials occurred openly and continuously for decades; by 1884 about 40 persons were buried there and monuments were erected.
- The land was conveyed in 1884 and again in 1887 to John Hutchinson; the purchasers, including Hutchinson, knew the land was used as a cemetery and that graves and tombstones were present.
- After acquiring title, Hutchinson announced no further burials would be allowed; for years he did not disturb existing graves.
- Around 1908, Hutchinson removed tombstones, plowed the area, and seeded it to convert the burial ground to agricultural use.
- Relatives of those interred sued in equity to (1) enjoin further disturbance of the graves and (2) obtain a declaration of a right of ingress and egress to visit and care for the burial site.
- The trial court found an implied dedication of the tract for cemetery purposes, enjoined Hutchinson from interfering with the cemetery, and recognized the relatives’ access rights.

## Issues

1. Whether long, open, and continuous use of private land as a burial ground, with the owner’s knowledge and acquiescence, can create an implied dedication for cemetery purposes.
2. Whether a subsequent purchaser with notice of graves and cemetery use may remove markers and cultivate the land, or instead is bound to refrain from disturbing the burial ground and to permit relatives reasonable access.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court upheld the finding of an implied dedication of the burial ground arising from decades of burials, monuments, and owner acquiescence.
- Hutchinson, as a successor in title with notice, took the land subject to the dedication and could not lawfully remove tombstones, plow, or otherwise disturb the graves.
- Injunctive relief was proper, and the relatives’ right of ingress and egress to visit and maintain the graves was protected.

## Legal Principles

- A common-law dedication may be implied from an owner’s conduct and long-continued, open, notorious use of land for a specific public or community purpose; no formal platting or recording is required.
- The visible presence of graves and monuments provides notice sufficient to bind subsequent purchasers to an existing cemetery dedication.
- Burial of human remains, with consent and reliance, creates enduring interests in maintaining graves undisturbed; equity will protect those interests because damages are inadequate.
- A cemetery established by dedication is not a revocable license; a fee owner holds title burdened by the dedicated use and associated access rights.

## Conclusion

Decades of acquiesced-in burial use impliedly dedicated the tract as a cemetery, and a purchaser who bought with notice was bound by that dedication; the court therefore upheld an injunction against disturbance and protected relatives’ access to the graves.


Roundtree v. Hutchinson, 107 P. 345 (Wash. 1910)