The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-11-12
THE ESCHEAT CASES
Judege Zane Rules Against
Church Ownership.
THREE QUESTIONS INVOLVED
The Law of Limitation, the Value of the
Properly Over Fifty Thousand Dollars
and the Use Made of Ii.

The following is the decision handed
down by Judge Zane in the church escheat
cases:
In the Third Judicial District Court for the
Territory of Utah. The United States VS.
Certain Real Estate of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints.
These three cases submitted 10 the court
are instituted under Section ID, of an act
Of Congress, approved March 3, 1887, which
reads as follows:
That it shall be the duty of the attorney gen
sral OF the United States to institute and pros
ecute proceedings to forfeit and escheat to the
United States the property Of corporations OBJ
tanned or held in violation of section OF an act
OF Congress, approved the LIST day of July,
eighteen hundred and sixty-two. entitled ETC.
Sections of the act of July l, 1862, reads
as follows
And be il further enacted, That il shall not be
lawful for any corporation or association for re
ligious or charitable purposes 10 acquire or
held real estate in any territory of the United
States during the existence OF the territorial
government OF greater value than $50 OO0 and
81 real estate acquired or held by any such cor
poration or association contrary TO the proVi-
sions OF this act shall be forfeited ana escheat
TO the United States; provided thai existing
flEhtS IN real estate Shall not be impaired by
the provisions OF this section.
Possession of two OF the tracts in
question had already beea taken be-
fore the Get OF 1862 took effect and such
possession was held by the church through
its agents at that time, and had been for
years previous thereto. The right of occu-
pants upon public lands conveyed TO towns
and cities under the TOWNSHIP law, up to
the time that the same were entered by the
mayor or the probate Judge, in those cases
where the probate judge may enter was
pernissive by the United States and the
government could have excluded them.
therefore it cannot be said that the right of
the occupant was vested right. The entry
by the mayor OF the city of Salt Lake was
made November 81, 1871, and up to tina,
time the title of the lands included in the
townsite was in the government of the
United States subject TO its control. Sec
ton l3 also has provision which reads as
follows: provided that no building, or
the ground sppurtenant thereto which is
held and occupied exclusively for the .pur-
poses OF the worship OF God, or parsonage
connected Herewith, or burial ground shall
be forfeited
1t appears that the Gardo house property
had been occupied up to the time the re-
ceiver took possession under decree of
the supreme court of the territory, by the
president of the church, and it appears
hAoe hO odhOuS 60 those
that are usually performed by parson and
the question is should
THE GARDo HOUSE
and the property on which the historians
Office is located adjoining it and claimed to
be so connected with the Gardo house as to
be part of it pe forfeited and escheated
under the law If the Gardo house should be
held to be parsonage
Counsel for The government rely upon a
decree OF the supreme court under Section
IL or the act OF March 3, as containing an
adjudication to the effect that the Carlo
house and all other property involved in
these actions were not occupied and used
exclusively for the worship of God or for
q parsonage connected Herewith, or a
burial ground; but it is insisted by the de-
1-aSSnis that in that action the court did