The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-01-20

} 1867. but before the entry OF the town
had mortgaged MS interest in the pro
party, which was claimed by him. ant
tue Supreme Court, Mr.. Justice Swayn
delivering the opinion, held that Their,
could be no question but that undo
the act OF Congress of March 2, 1867
Smith had acquired an equitable in
terest In the premises, which he cOul(
sell and convey. The Court says:
Until the Mayor of Salt Lake City
made the entry at the proper lant
office. which he was authorized t,
make, the legal title was in the United
States. By the entry it became vesteC
in the Mayor. He held the entire trac
80 entered. in trust for the several us'
and benefit of the occupants thereof
according to their respective interests.
In the case of Stringfellow VS.. Cain
SO u. s., GIG, a similar question arose
under the toWn-site law In reference tt
the right of property in Salt Lake City
In this case the widow of Joseph Cair
aud her children claimed. by right o.
inheritance, portion of the land in
controversy. of which her husband and
the father of her children had died pos
sessed. Cain died in 1867. His interest
In part of the property was sold by
his administrators TO pay taxes assessed
upon the property after his death, and
1t was bought by the Stringfellow bro
theirs on the 10th of December, 1869
| They paid for the property its full
value, and were in actual possession
when the entry was made by the cor
porate authorities at the land office
The children were not made parties to
the proceedings under which the sale
was made, and neither sthey nor their
mother were in possession of the prem
lses when they were sold. The court
says:
''All the interest their father had in
the lot when he die1 was an inchoate
right to the benefit OF the town site
law, in case the property should be
purchased from the United States by
the corporate authorities, under the
provision of that law. All he could do
was to maintain his occupancy and
claim the statutory trust in his favor,
in case that trust should be created.
He held the possession of one seeking to
acquire title by possession adverse
to all the other inhabitants of the town.
His right to maintain this adverse
possession decended, under the laws OF
| Utah, to his widow and children. There
can be no doubt that the possession the
children thus acquired, if continued,
woald have ripened into a perfect title
| under the trust"
Eghth-The Church is entitled to have
and mold the Gsrdo House and grounds
as parsonage, pursuant to sections Ii
and II of the act of Congress of March
3, 1887 Irrespective of its value or the
time OF its aoquisition). because it had
been used and occupied by the presi-
dent and head of the Church, as q
parsonage, eight years pricr 10 the pas
sage of the act of March 3, 1887, and Is
still so used and occupied.
In respect to the Gardo House and
grounds, they were owned by Brigham
Young, individually, at the lime of his
death in 1877. He was president of the
Mormon Church. After his death his
executors transferred and conveyed the
property to John Taylor, as trustee-in-
trust for the corporation of the Church
OF Jesus Christ of Latter-day SAINTS,
for valuable consideration, pursuatto
the powers vested in them by the will of
Brigham Young, and in April, 1878.
John Taylor conveyed the same to
Theodore Mexican, on a secret trust
for the corporation, who held the same
uDon said trust until the I'd day of July,
1887, when he conveyed the property
to Preston Burton, and WInder, as
trustees-in-trust, to hold the same 'for
the use, benefit and behouf of the presi-
dent or leader of that certain body of
religious worshipers known and called
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
day Saints, for a residence or par
sonege."
The 26th section of the act of Congress
of 1887 authorizes all religious societies,
scots and congregations to hold,
through trustees appointed by the
Probate Court, so much real property
for the erection or use of houses of
worship, and for parsonages and burial
grounds, as shall be necessary for the
convenience and use of the several con-
gregations. The Probate Court had
appointed the trustees, the property
had been conveyed to them as par
sonage, and the petitioned the Supreme
Court of the Territory of Utah to set it
apart for such use, but the prayer of
the petition was denied and the decree
of the court has made no provision for
parsonage or burial ground for the
Church. The Temple Block was set
apart for houses of worship. Under the
act of Congress the members of the
congregation are entitled to parsonage
and burial ground. The Gardo House
is property which had been used as a
parsonage and place of residence for
the head of the Church. Is there any
reason in law or justice why it should
not be retained as such, if the corpora
ton should be dissolved2
Ninth-While the appellants insist
that, whether the Church corporation
is dissolved or not, either the members
of the unincorporated sect, or the cor
poration, as the case may be, are en-
titled to all the property in the hands of
The receiver, whether real or personal,
and that no part thereof is subject to
forfeit or escheat to the United States,
yet if it should be held that any part
thereof is subject to forfeit or escheat,
the forfeiture could only apply to SO
much of the Church Farm and Summit
County land as might be found to be in
excess of the fifty thousand dollars il
value at the time of their acquisition,
which the Church had the legal right
to acquire and hold after the passage of
the act of July l. 1862.
The remainder of the real property,
found to have been acquired since the
passage of the act of July l, 1862. con-
sists of the Church Farm and the IN
divided half of tract of land in Sum.
NIT County, Utah. And even if the
act of July l, 1862, should be held