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.
13. John M. Ferris is a party to this bill and has filed his answer, to which no has been filed and the cause as to the said Ferris is to be heard on the said bill an answer.
1 The bill charges that John Ferris is administrator of the said Joseph Smith deceased.
This is admitted by the answer.
2 The bill charges that no personal estate came to the hands of Ferris as such administrator and that he has received nothing from the sales of the real estate of the said Joseph Smith.
This also admitted by answer.
3. The bill charges that the said Ferris as admr. of Smith’s estate has filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Illinois for the purpose of subjecting the said real estate herein before described of which said Joseph Smith died seized to the payment of the debts proved in the Probate Court of said against the estate of the said Joseph Smith.
Which is admitted by the answer of Ferris
But the said Ferris insists that as the administrator of the estate of the said Joseph Smith deceased he has a right to proceed in his said petition and sell the said lands under an order of the said Court and make distribution of the proceeds of such sales under the statutes of according to the respective equities of all the creditors of said estate,
And the said Ferris further insists that if this Court upon the final hearing of this cause direct a sale of the lands in said bill mentioned, the Court should direct the proceeds of such sales to be paid over to him for the purpose of distribution according to the equities of the creditors of said intestate.
And the said Ferris further insists that if his pending proceeding in the state Courts to subject said lands to sale is disregarded, and this Court refuse to order the proceeds of such sales as may be made under the order of this Court to be paid over to him for distribution as aforesaid, then and in that event, he insists that his expenses of administration amounting to 100$, may by order of this Court be paid to him out of the proceeds of [p. 647]