Mount Auburn Cemetery

S

Nov. 16, 1888.

S. D. Bennett, Esq., Boston.

Dear Sir:-

Sods have been cut and taken from your land on Market St. Brighton, by the Corporation amounting to 3780 feet, the price was to be one half cent per foot, and if you will please send me bill it will be paid.

Respectfully yours,

Supt.

#2512-S

Nov. 17, 1888.

Mrs. M.C. Kent, Elmwood, Mass.

Dear Madam:-

Your note to our Treasurer has been handed to me for answer. The estimate given you before the work was done was $40.00 and the old material of the fence. Your written order a copy of which I enclose also gives this price.

Respectfully yours,

Supt.

123

#2560-S

Nov. 28, 1888.

Mrs. Olive B. Mentzer,

Brighton.

Dear Madam:-

The fence on your lot is rusty and unsightly, and the appearance of the lot and its surroundings would be improved by removing it. Will you authorise me to do this, recut the posts at the corners, remove the other posts and sod over the post holes and cut the number of the lot, without expense to you except the old material.

Respectfully yours,

Supt.

Boston May 5, 1862

Dear Sir,

At the meeting of the Trustees of Mount Auburn held this day, it was

Voted - "That the Commitee on Grounds be authorized to pay Messrs Shedd & Edson the sum of seven hundred & thirty two & 86/100 dollars ($732.86) in addition to the sum of of $730 already paid, for which the contract was made, it being understood that they have actually expended in cash $1,482.86 in completing the survey of the Cemetery; it also being understood that they are to correct all errors that may be found in the survey and plans, if any, free of charge." -

A true copy Attest A.J Coolidge Sec.y

Geo W^m Bond Esq Treas^r

33 School St Boston May 6/62

O. Livermore Esq. Brighton, Mass

Dear Sir,

I am directed by the Committee on Lots to notify you that you can have liberty to construct a Catacomb tomb on your lot in Mount Auburnno. 2195 - on payment of the usual sum for a tomb privilege - fifty dollars. $50. The face of the tomb to be on a line with the Receiving Tomb, and the whole to be executed according to the 23^d & 24^th articles of the By-laws.

The By-laws you will find in your copy of the catalogue (edition of 1860) which I presume you have.

Yours resp.y

A.J. Coolidge Sec.y Mt Auburn

57

Boston, May 6, 1862

Capt D.L. Winsor,

Dear Sir,

At the meeting of the Trustees of Mount Auburn held yesterday, the following vote was passed.

"That the Committee on Lots be authorized to grant to the purchasers of lots the privilege of constructing tombs and catacombs within the same at prices to be fixed by the Committee - not less than fifty dollars for each tomb or catacomb: - and they shall be further authorized to grant to proprietors of lots heretofore purchased the same privilege at the same price, not less than fifty dollars for each tomb, which shall be constructed according to Articles 23^d and 24^th of the By-laws."

By the foregoing you will see that $50, at least, is required to be paid in all cases, and that thus the old rule (or rather exception) of no charge in cases of catacomb tombs is virtually abrogated.-

I have sent Mr Livermore, of Brighton, the reply of the Committee on Lots, that he has permission to construct a Catacomb tomb in Lot 2195 on payment of fifty dollars, ($50.) the face of the tomb to be on a line with that of the Receiving Tomb - the whole to be executed according to the 23^d and 24^th articles of the By-laws.-

Of course the financial part of that transaction must be attended to before O'Donnell can do anything.

Yours truly

A.J. Coolidge Sec.y

58

Aug. 16 [186]4

Cha^s. F. Shimmin Esq.

Dear Sir,

Your deed had not come to me when I saw you the other day. Since then it was handed in for record together with a very scaly looking deed from Garder to Mrs Hood. -- As you executed it as the Ex^orof Mrs Parkman, I feared you had made an error therein and went to the Probate office here to see if I could trace the title. Not finding it, & remembering being once shown a place in Brighton, when I was a little boy, as that of David Parkman, I thought I would refer to the records in Middlesex county: and there found a will of David Parkman, of Cambridge, in which all his personal estate was given absolutely to his widow, Mary George Parkman, and "all real ^ ^{& personal} estate in reversion or expectancy, to my wife Mary G., to be held and endorsed by her during her natural life, and after her decease to be divided equally between my two youngest children, Charles M. & Mary H. Parkman," &c. -- In the inventory, to which I turned, with a view if possible of further inden-- tification (for I had never heard of his living in Camb.) I found returned "no real estate". & under the head of personal, 2^nd item -- "Lot in Mt Auburn $75." -- This I dare say was the source of your error. The charter of our Corpⁿ declares every lot to be real estate, and no inven-- tory or other process could change it to personal. Real estate then goes directly to the heirs. If the second clause above quoted "real estate in reversion or expectancy" does not cover it -- by which it went to your wife & Mr Chas. M. upon the decease of Mrs P., still it would go as real estate in possession and not referred to in the will, to his heirs general; and I infer from the assent of C.M. & M.H. as the only heirs of Mrs P. to the probate of her will, that Edward B. has deceased, without issue. If that is the case, then the same persons are ^^now heirs general of

168