Transcript of Proceedings, , Sangamon Co., IL, ca. 17 July 1852, U.S. v. Joseph Smith III et al. (United States Circuit Court for the District of IL 1852); U.S. District Court for the District of Illinois, Complete Records, 1837–1856, vol. 4, pp. 486–697; handwriting of ; Records of District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21, National Archives at Chicago, Chicago.
Judgement aforesaid, that the estate of the said has been settled up and property thereto belonging amounting to over $5000 sold by the administrator of said ’s estate in the County of aforesaid and no effort has been made to make said judgement or any part thereof from said Estate that the said , and have been permitted to sell their respective properties and remove with the proceeds thereof amounting in all to over $10,000, out of this district in the year 1846, that the said , now resides in Pottawottamie County in the State of where he owns in his own right and in his own name property to the value of more than $5000, that said now resides at or near St. Josephs in the State of and is now seized in his own right and in his own name of property over the amount of $5000, that said now resides in the Territory of Utah and is seized of property in his own right and name to the value of more than $5000 and so respondant says that the other defendant in said judgement in said bill mentioned in said bill mentioned are not insolvent and have never at any time been insolvent since the renedition of the judgement aforesaid and have not been and are not remidiless at Law.
Respondant further says that as the administrator of the Estate of the said Joseph Smith deceased received in his capacity as such administrator of personal property and of the proceeds of the sale of real estate sold by him under the decree for that purpose herein before mentioned sufficient after paying the expenses of administration and all debts of the deceased of the first and second classes under the statutes of to have paid and satisfied the said judgement in said bill mentioned that said judgement is entitled to preference as in said bill alledged, that said as such administrator by reason of the complainant neglecting to prove his claim in said bill mentioned either paid said the monies in his hands as aforesaid in the payment of debts of an inferior class and of which said judgement had preference or removed with the same out of this .
Respondant denies that said or his securities as such administrator are insolvent as in said bill alledged and so respondant says that the said complainants ought not in equity and good conscience to be permitted now to come in and disturb the sale made by said of said quarter section when purchased and held in good faith and for the valuable consideration as herein before stated after having permitted so many oppertunities to make their monies, escape them and after the full value of the land aforesaid had been paid upon the sale aforesaid by the [p. 613]