The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-10-24


doubt may have existed respecting the abll-
ity of the receiver to recover the property,
| find that the duty still remained to
reserve the right of action to re-
cover 1t, and then he neglected to perform
his duty as receiver in emitting to have
proper decree entered in the suit. | lind
from the evidence, however, that in this
his neglect was not Intentional,
nor was it 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
examination, believed that a proper decree,
reserving his right to proceed against the
association to recovery OF the lot, had Deen
entered. He had employed competent
and skill1ul attorney to represent MIN
in the suit, and supposed that under
the attorneys direction decree III
proper form had been entered. 1t appears
from the evidence that either through
misunderstanding existing between ms
counsel and the attorneys for the defend
ant in the suit, respecting the form OF the
decree, or from the inadvertence, the de-
cree was made in favor of the association,
when the action should have been con-
tinued against it, or dismissed without
prejudice to a new suit. While such facts
relieve the receiver from any charge OF bad
faith in the transaction, his responsibility
would remain for any loss which the plain
tiff, the United States, might sustain by
reason Of the decree, should 1t ultimately
be determined that the council house cor
ner lot was property of the church defend-
ant which should have been recovered and
held by him as receiver subject to the III
ture disposition of the court appointing
him.
3-s'Eyidepce was taken and is here
with returned, respecting the Response
bility, if any, of the receiver for the max
ing of the agreed state of facts and the
final decree filed in this suit on October s,
1883. 1t appears by the evidence that at
the time the agreed state of facts and de-
cree in the suit were made, verbal un-
Outstanding or agreement had been en-
tered into between the attorney represen-
ting the government in the suit, Solicitor
General jerks and George S. Peters,
United States attorney, and +. S. Rich
ards, and of the attorneys for the church
defendant, to the effect that the decree
should be final between the parties; that
the property of the church described in
the statement of facts and decree was all
the property which it possessed and which
could be claimed in and fortune proceeding
as property which might be subject to es-
cheat under the acts of Congress-. That no
suits or proceedings should be brought or
maintained by the government or the re-
ceiver against the defendant or any per
sons claiming under it, to recover any
other property than that described in the
decree, and that the suit brought by the
receiver in the district court for the ter
ritory at Ogden to recover real estate IN
that city by the receiver to be church pro
perty and subject to escheat, were to be
dismissed.
sThe decree sets forth and describes ap-
parently all the property of the church
constituting the subject matter of the suit
and the property which might be sublec
to escheat under the acts of Congress. M
reservation appears to be made in the de
cree of any right which the government
might have to maintain any other suit tt
recover church property not named in 1t
The decree is in fact such as to create thu
gravest doubt whether any further suits o.
proceedings can now be maintained by tn,
government to recover any other propert!
of the church except the property which
in terms embraces AMI describes.
prior to the making of this agreemen
of facts and the entry OF the decree, tn
United States District Attorney g.
Peters, who signed the agreement and as
sented to the decree in behalf of the gov
eminent, had been, with the assent of tn
attorney general of the United STATES
employed by the receiver to assist and ad
wise him as one of his attorneys in all mat
, tiers pertaining to his receivershlp. Hi
, employment by the receiver continue
until after the decree was entered. At tn
, same time the receiver had employed q
his principal attorney and adviser Parle
: L. Williams.
81 find from the evidence that neither til
receiver nor his attorney, Williams, too
: any part or participated IN the negotiation
: between the attorneys representing tt
: government and church defendant, whiC
, led to the making of the agreed state
d facts and the entry of the decree; that
+ was not the duty of the receiver to see thi
{ a decree should be entered in the suit, whic
l should be in such form as would preserJ
the right of the government to pursue otht
= property in the church not described in
| Should it ultimately be determined that tt
J. decree precludes the government from pr
, ceeding to escheat property of the churC
e not mentioned in it, the responsibility of
= entry rests with the attorneys for the go
t eminent who signed the agreement of fac
f under which it was entered, and not wi
Y the receiver.
!, '4-On July 5th, 1890, the receiver.
e compliance with an order from the cour
, filedwith the clerk thereof a report ar
$ account of his acts as receiver from Il
e time of his appointment in the month
s November, 1887, until the filing of the I
v port July 5, 1890 In this report a stat
% ment in detail is made by him of all re
J. and personal property received by him a
e taken into his custody under the order a
l. pointing him receiver, together with stat
e ment of all moneys so received and of ;
: disbursements made during his receive
e ship under the orders Of the court or othe
~ wise. On September2 1890, he also filed wi
d the clerk of the court a further report a
" account of his receipts and disbursement
If to July 10, 1890. the date of the acceptan
e. of his resignation as receiver by order
r the court. From month to month fri
~ January ], 1855, until the acceptance of
le resignation, he also made and filed repol
lie of his receipts and disbursements, wi
lie vouchers for all moneys paid out by him
x receiver. l have carefully examined
in these reports, with the vouchers accol
d panying them, and find from them and t
IN evidence taken by me that they contain
lie true statement of all property, real or p,
b, sonal including moneys which came ir
at his hands during his receivership, and of
I'd disbursements made by him as receiv,
It. The real property in his custo
ne consisted of block 81, plat A, Salt La
in city, known as the Temple block, whi
C. was delivered by him to the authorities
n. the church defendant in pursuance of I
a decree of the supreme court IN this ST.
at The real estate situated in said city a
he known as the tithing office and groun
5. Gardo house and lot, what is common
a known as the church farm, situated in S
On Lake county, also an undivided one half
ee terest in the lands situated in Sunni
,y counsy, Utah Territory, known as I
err church coal lands. The personal prope,
at received by him consists of 30, 15S chul
", sheep, 500 shares of Salt Lake city gas &C
" pany stock, 4,732 shares of the Deseret tt
ne graph company's stock, herder's camp o
be hit at Chalk creek, consisting of hors
r. wagons, harness, household and kitct
A, furniture, 1856 pounds Of wool, Office f
be niture in charge of James Jack, Salt L.
rs city, furniture in the Gardo house, of
n furniture purchased and used by the
e, ceiver, and moneys amounting to the s
iy of 1911, 6S4.30. Out of this sum he has &
D. bursed and received and filed with