Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-10-23

LFustS IN lhNuI vi Nllt Ouu4Cu Ac-
PENDANT; aui Il would, I'm
less modified In that respect.
operate rs bar 70 any iarther claim
made By the Receiver or the United
States Tor the premises. ne subject 10
escheat Under The acts OF Congress
mentioned. 1t is not in accordance
with the petition filed by the Re-
eeiver, reserving and excepting the
lot claimed by the association from
compromise and settlement. By
the term Of the compromise TO
which the Receiver and Defendant
in the suit agreed, al1 which was
approved by the Supreme Court, no
decree should have been entered In
favor OF the association. The seton
should have been continued for
further trial rs 10 il, or dismissed
without prejudice to another suitby
the Receiver 10 determine the title
to the bt reserved.
Under these circumstances, find
that Il was the duty u the Receiver
10 see that a proper decree should be
entered in the suit, resefving from
the compromise the Council House
corner lot. IL appears from
the evidence that the value Of
this lot is forty thousand dollars
or more. Whatever doubt may
have existed respecting the ability
OF the Receiver % recover the prop
ertv, | End that the duty still re-
manned to reserve the right Of action
% recover 1t, and then he neglected
to perform his duty as Receiver In
emitting to have n proper decree
entered in the suit. / find from the
evidence, however, that in this
transaction his neglect was not in
territorial, nor was II the result OF
bad faith on his part The Receiver,
from the time the decree in the
Eldredge suit was entered until the
giving Of his testimony on this ex-
animation, believed that a proper
decree. reserving his right to pre-
coed against the association to re-
eovery Of the lot, had been entered.
He had employed n competent and
skilful attorney 10 represent him In
the suit, and supposed that under
TIT AANg- , AAANAAANAA ~ aNNAN1 az
proper form had be IN entered. Ii
appears from the evidence that
either through a misunderstanding
existing between his counsel and
the attorneys for the defendant in
the suit, respecting the form Of the
decree, or from the inadvertence,
the decree was made in favor Of the
I Ia.. ahNruFnIf
have been continued against il, OF
dismissed without prejudice to n
new suit. While such facts relieve
the Receiver from any charge Oi
I bad faith in the transaction, his re-
| spOusibility would remain for any
loss which the plaintiff. the United
States, might sustain 10y reason Of
the decree. should il ultimately be
determined that the Council House
corner lot was property Of the
/ Church defendant which should
have been recovered and held 10y
him rs Receiver subject to the
future disposition Of the court ap'
pointing him.
Evidence was taken ami Is here
with returned, respecting the r.
sponsibil;;y. II any, OF the Receiver
for the making OF the agreed state
Of facts and the final decree filed in
this suit on October S, ISIS. Ii APP
pears by the evidence that at the
time the agreed state Of facts and
decree in the suit were made, a YER
bal understanding or agreement had
been entered into between the at
torneys representing the govern
ment in the suit, Solicitor General
jerks and George ;. Peters, United
States Attorney, and +. ;. Richards,
and of the attorneys for the Church
defendant, to the effect that the de-
cree should be final between the
parties: that the property Of the
Church desert ed in the statement
OF facts and decree WIS all the
property which it possessed aud
which could be claimed in any future
proceeding as property which might
be subject TO escheat under the acts
OF Congress. That no suits or other
proceeding should be brought OF
maintained by the government OF
the Receiver against the defendant
or any persons claiming under il, 10
recover any other property than
that described in the decree, and
that the suits brought blythe Receiver
in the District Court for the Terri
tory at Ogden TO recover real estate
in that city claimed 10y the Receiver
10 be Church property and subject tC
escheat, were 10 be dismissed.
The decree sets forth and describes
apparently all the property D. the
Church constituting the subject
matter OF the suit, aud the property
which might be subject 10 eschear
under the acts Of Congress. No
reservation appears to he made in
the decree Of any right which the
government might have to maintain
any ether suit TO recover Church
property not named in il. The de
cree Is in fact such rs to create the
gravest doubt whether any further
/ suits or proceedings can nov Ue main
tained by the government TO recover
any other property Of the church
except the property which it in
I terms embraces and describes.
Prior 10 the making Of this agree,
ment Of facts and the entry Of the
decree, the United States District
Attorney G.. 5. Peters. who signed
the agreement and assented to the
decree in behalf Of the government,
/ had been, with the assent OF the
Attorney General or the United
States, employed byt Receiver "a
assist and advise him as one Of hi.
attorneys in all matters pertaining
/ to his receivership. His employ.
ment by the Receiver continued
until after the decree was entered.
At the same time the Receiver had
employed as his principal attorney
and adviser Farley l.. Williams.
/ find from the evidence that
neither the Receiver nor his attOr-
ney, Williams, took any part or par
/ ticipated IN the negotiations be
tween the attorneys representing
the government anu church defend.
ant, which led 10 the making Of the
/ agreed state Of facts and the entry
OF the decree: that it was not the
duty Of the Receiver TO see that a
| decree should be entered in the suit,
which should be in such form as
would preserve the right Of the gov.
ernment to pursue other property
Of the church not described in il.
Should il ultimately be determined
that the decree preclIdes the gov.
eminent from proceeding TO eseheai
property o. the church not men.
toned in it, the responsibility OF il:
entry rests with the attorneys fol
the government who signed the
agreement OF facts under which il
was entered, and not with the Re-
! ceivcr.
".
On July 9Th, 1890, the Receiver, in
compliance with an order Of the
court, filed with the clerk thereof a
report and account Of his acts as
Receiver from the time OF his ap'
poiutment in the month Of No
vember, 1857, until the filing OF
the report July >, 1880. In this re-
port . statement in detail is made
hy him Of all real and personal
property received by him and taken
into his custody under the order APP
pointing him Receiver, together