Show the united states plaintiff vs gardo house and historian office et al defendant smith J this proceeding proceeded ediD r is in its general features like the case of the united audited states a against a abigt the tithing 0 yard et ct adjust decided and is governed by the decision in that case except for the difference in the state stale of facts the property called the gardo house property being the east half of lot 0 6 in block 75 plat A of salt lake city as shown by the alie findings of fact w was is not acquin acquired ed by the church until 1877 and the church had no interest in it ou on july 1802 1862 hence bence under the conclusion conc lution reached in the tithing yard case the property just described as the gardo ahouee is subject to forfeiture and the decree es cheating it to the plaintiff should be affirmed As to the property described in the complaint and findings as a P part 0 of f t the I 1 ae west ivest half of lot G block bloch 75 7 rp plat 1 t A in salt lake city C icv commencing at a point 10 rods I 1 west est of northeast 0 cornor of said lot 6 thence south gouth 10 rods thence west 7 rods to ibo place be beginning gilling and called the historian Histo riall office and grounds it appears that the property pio pi perty was acquired by the church in 1855 and was then substantially improved and that tile the church was on oil july 1862 and ever since lias has been in in the actual possession of orthe the property we hold that the church had a vested interest in this property it at the time of the passage past a fre of tile the act of 1562 and that it was wa s reserved to the church and not rendered subject to escheat by abo provision of that act as indicated in our opinion in tile the tithing yard case it results from the conclusions announced that the decree in this ease should be affirmed so far as it declares a forfeiture of the gardo house lion se property and in so far as it declares a forfeit forfeiture ture of tile the ian C office property it should be reversed and remanded to llie file district court with directions direction s to dismiss bismis a the action we concur J BARTCH J |