Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-08-31

the reason that II was imruasillc 90 DO
this. The Church against which tho
legislation was directed could not have
PRIOR b that time acquired amy such
intsfest. We IRE OF opinion that tnis
property involved Ia this uction was
not subject 10 forfeiture o. csChvnt un-
dor the provisions Of the act Of 1852,
ani that the judgment II the court
below should be reversed anu the Gaze
rrmandcd with directions o. dlsmi :
the action, anu It iu 20 ordered.
W. concur, MtNrH, J.
BAWCu, j.
The United States. plaintiff, W Gardo
House aud Historian Onice ct al,
dcf,ndnnt. Smith, J.
This proceeding 4. la its general
features like the casA OF the United
States against the Timing yard oil nj,
jult ducidcd, aud Is governed by tho
decision Ina that case, except for the
Difference Ia tue state VI FACES.
The property called the Ghrd0 House
property, being the east half OF lot o.,
la block 10, plat A of salt Lake City,
AZ shown by the findings OF fact, wa
not acquired by the Church until 1877
aud tho Church had no Interest Ia u
on July Let, 1862; hence under the con-
clusion rcachei IN the IIthiug yard
cnsc the property just described as tile
Gardo House IL subject 10 forfeiture
ana tho decree Cschuating II 10 tho
plaintiff should be affirmed.
A. % the property described In the
complaint and nndings ~ ~ att Of the
west hall Of lot o, blocG 10, plat A Ia
halt Lake City, commencing vt "a point
10 rods west OF the northeast conner OF
said lot o, thence south 10 rods. thence
west rods, thence north 10 rode,
thence east rods 10 the place OF be.
ginning, ana called the Historian
office aud groun1e, II appears.
That tho property was acquired by
the Church In 1865 and wns then sub.
stantially Improved, aud that tho
Church was on July lot, 1859, anu
ever since has been, In this actual poe.
session Of this property.
We hold that tho Church had "a
vested Interest la this properly at the
time Of the passage Of The act Of 1852,
and that II was reserved 10 the Church
AMI not rendered tubjeu' 10 cschtat by
the proyisioul OF that act ~ Indicated
In our opinion IN tho tithing yard
cnse.
We deem II proper TO add TO this
opinion the following which was
omitted from the opinion Ia the prinoi-
pal case. IL was suggested rather than
urged on tho Argument that the right
OF the Government 10 a forfeiture In all
Of these casos was alregdy adludicated
In favor OF the Government by the de.
cision Of tho supreme Court Of the
United States In tue case OF United
States W Church, 1888, u. 81.
We cannot agree 10 this view; that
was AN action commenced IN the court
under special powers conferred on this
court by tho Got OF March 3fJ, 1851.
u 10 not 10 be cDniondod that this
o0ur. had any Jurisdiction In the
premises except that conferred by the
act. An examination Of the act AMI
the provisions " sections ~ aud 20
will show that tue jurisdiction of this
court was limited 10 two subjects!
Firt-lo appoint a receiver Tor the
property OF the Church CORPORATION
until II could be disposed Of, ANA finally
10 dispose OF II iOr lawful purposes of
like nature with those OF which IL had
been given to the Church.
SecOnd-ro set apart and place I'm
the hands OF the trustees the real
estate Of tho Church used for places OF
worship, pafbOnageh and burial
grounds.
This we think was tho full extent of
the Jurisdiction OF this court in TINT
case, anu this seems 10 have been
the view Of both this court and Inc
Supreme Court Of tho United States In
deciding that case.
This being the case, OF course the
right OF the government 10 esoheat the
property proceeded against Ia these
actions was not anu could not have
been involved.
This view II fully supported by the
opinion OF the Supreme Court OF ths
United States In the case referred 10.
In the opinion 1873 u. 3. % the court
says "ihis suit IL In some Tssperts
an auxiliary one Instituted for the pur.
pose OF stsking possession OF and
holding for dual disposition tue pfop.
erty Of thu defuuCt corporation In the
hands Of receiver and winding up it,
Affairs. To that extent aud 10 thai OK.
tent only the decree Of the circuit
court has gone.
la the proceedings which have been
Instituted IN The District Court OF the
Territory II will be determined
whether the real estate Of the corpora.
ton which has been seized (eIceptirp
portions exempted by the nct) 10 or n
not 10 be- esoheAted or become forfeited
to tue United States"
See 1855, u. =. o..
From the above citation IL will bs
seen that the Supreme Court expressly
holds that tho matter OF whether tue
property In controversy here h subject
to esChegt aud forfeiture Ia still open
for adjudication.
This action II instituted by express
authority Of section 10 Ol the act of
March 3rd, 1857. IL Is anu was intended
10 be- proceeding wholly independent
Of tho notion In the supreme Court
provided Tor In sections II and 20 OF
that aut.
II results FROM the conclusions an.
nounced tina; the decree In this case
should be- affirmed 80 far a. II declares
"a forfeiture Of the Carlo house prom.
eTty, ana IN ~ f,r gs II declares a Tor.
ieiture OF the Historian office property
II should be- reversed ana femanded 10
the dislrict bOuu with directions 10
dismiss the action,
We concur MINER, j.,
BAHTCn, j.
Tho uuitad States Va The nhnrch