04. Orders and Claims

In the District Court 3rd Judicial District of Utah Emeline A. Young et al Plffs. vs. George Q. Cannon et al Defts.

To George Q. Cannon Brigham Young & Albert Carrington

We are informed that you still retain in your hands $147,835.52 of the personal assets or proceeds of assets of the Estate of Brigham Young deceased and not yet transferred to the undersigned receivers appointed in said action; we therefore demand of you and each of you the said sum and every part thereof and we identify the said moneys as still in your hands as contemplations of law and required to be paid over to us as such receivers as follows $50,677.37 falsely credited to you on your account as percentage and compenstation as executors of the Estate of Brigham Young deceased.

$10,938.45 falsely credited to yourselves on your account as executors for interest on loans of money pretended to have

been negotiated by you on behalf of said estate. $31,431.48 falsely credited to yourselves on account of claims barred by the Statute of Limitations and represented by vouchers in your pretended account as No. 239 $16,978.50 " 526 $9427.96 " 264 $4984.42 A/C of Sharp & Dunford $40.00 $53,682.22 falsely credited by you as having been paid on debts against the estate of Brigham Young but not in fact so paid the pretended debts for which the credit is taken being in fact debts of John W. Young if any existed.

$500 falsely credited to yourselves in your said account aforesaid as having been paid to L. S. Hills as commission on sale of bonds. $566 falsely credited to yourselves in your account aforesaid on account of Margaret Jo Young all and each of said pretended credits being false fradulent illegal and void and we hereby demand the amount thereof and each and every item thereof as above set forth

M. Shaughnessy Receiver

In 3rd Dist. Court

Emeline A. Young et al vs. George Q. Cannon et al

Brief for Plaintiff

The order of June 12th contains the requirement which the plaintiffs insist has been only partially complied with. By that order W.S. McCormick and M. Shaughnessy were appointed "Receivers of all the property real and personal and assets of Brigham Young late etc. deceased and the rents issues and profits thereof" And these defendants now before the Court were by that order severally required by name to "deliver over to such receivers, or one of them demanding the same, all such property and assets of whatsoever name, nature or kind, and wherever situated."

A demand has been admitted, made on the three executors and John Taylor, coextensive with the order so far as the personal assets are concerned.

2

remained in their hands, when the order was served on them; and if they have not delivered them they have not complied with the order.

The Inventories are this admission of assets received and their accounts & vouchers show to what extent and how they claim to have disposed of those assets.

The Inventoried assets not shown by their accounts and vouchers to have been disposed of by necessary inference must be deemed still in their hands.

The proceeds of assets are themselves assets however numerous the transformations. The Executor account on the debit side is made up as this principle.

That account shows certain personal assets in ther hands.

First those in Exhibit entered as a credit amounting to $

Second a cash balance of $

3

Any items entered on the credit side of that account not allowable and which should be stricken out could leave a corresponding amount standing charged to the executor and by legal intendment still in their hands.

We insist that for the purpose of this inquiry all funds and assets which the executor have received, and not shown to be disposed of according to the trust, are still to be treated as in their hands, and the final order upon this proceeding should be based upon that assumption.

For reasons declared in the complaint Receivers have been appointed, as a measure deemed necessary for the safety of the trust property pending the litigation. And the duty has been imperatively imposed on those defendants to transfer all the personal assets.

No dispute raised by the defendants in respect to the title of the assets will prevent their transfer.

Saylor vs Mockbie 9 Iowa 209.

It appears by the admission of these defendants that they have assets in such manner that even if there had been no appointment of Receivers the Court would by interlocutory order denied them to be paid into Court.