The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-01-30

Ou 4ddiCH ID i, 1000 hpTll I'll, 1903, A0u
May Ash, 1888, Receiver Dyer insti
tut.d actions in the Third Judicial Dis
trict Court CT this Territory against
Ysrious defendants, and 10 the COM
plants in said suits, among other
things, alleges that said last above des.
cribed tracts of land Were obtained and
held by said late corporation in viola
ton of section 3 of the act of July LIST,
1862, and not for the purposes of the
worship of God, Or parsonages of burial
grounds, and that the claims of the
various defendants in sand suits were
invalid, and prayed that tbs deeds of
said various defendants be held to be
colorado, and that the cloud upon tina
title created by such deeds be removed,
and that the possession of the said
lands be adjudged to the said receiver
for the uses and purposes mentioned in
the said section 3 of the act of March
Sd, 1887.
THE PETITION
then proceeds to state that afterwards,
on or about the 9th day of July, 1888,
the suits ABOVE named, compromised
said suits, and in lieu of said tracts of
land described in said complaint lex
cept portion Of lot 8, in block 76) that
said receiver took the sam of SSH
666 10. or q note therefor. to stand in
the place thereof, and be treated aud
applied as the land should have bsen
treated aud applied; that the solicit
ors of Eaid corporation were the attor-
neys of the said defendants, except
one, in said compromises, and thereby
ad United that the land had been OBJ
tanned by the late corporation and was
then held by the said defendants for
the late corporation in violation of
said act of Congress, and that the
plaintiff was entitled to recover il
SAID acts were valid; and in effect
admitted that the money received
should be substituted Tor said lands,
and should be applied for the benefit
of said common schools; that the
order of this court authorizing the said
receiver to compromise said suits was
made by the court, as your petitioners
are informed and believe, solely upon
the recommend atoms and representa-
tons of the receiver and his solicitors,
who stated to the court that the esti-
mates in the petition for authority to
compromise were the actual and reason
able values OF said tracts under the cir
cumstances, aud that said compromis es
we're fair and reasonable; your petit
TONERS charge, however, that said tracts
of land were worth $225, 600, and that
$S4, 666 15 was
GROSSLY INADEQUATE VALUATION
of said property; that no evidence was
heard by the court in regard to said
compromise, and your petitioners be-
iieye that the court was misled by the
said representations and recommends
lions OF the receiver and his solicitors;
that the said order of the court required
the receiver to report said compromise
to the court for its approval, and that
such report has not been made.
The petition then proceeds to afiege
that the compromises should be set
aside; but if they are allowed to stand,
then the money or notes, or other evil
dences of indebtedness, or the proceeds
thereof, taken for or in lieu of said
land, must be applied as the land and
the proceeds thereof was required to be.
The petition further alleges that the
said receiver now has in his possession