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.
deceased named in the paragraph severally opposite to which their names are written in the margin with these words “This paragraph relates to Respondant.”
They verily believe were made bonafide to bonafide purchasers in said deeds respectively named as the grantors thereof and for the valuable considerations actually paid at the several times thereof in said deeds respectively mentioned, and without any fraudulent purposes intent or design whatever or to hinder or delay or defraud the complainants or any other persons in the collection of any debts, whatever.
And they further answer each for himself, that under the grantees in said from Joseph Smith mentioned in said paragraph to which their names are respectively written opposite as aforesaid, they respectively claim the premises in such conveyances described as indicated in such paragraph by divers rights and conveyances bonafide obtained all interest which said Joseph Smith decd. had in such premises but which are too numerous and complicated to make exhibit of and set forth in this answer.
These Respondants deny that said Joseph Smith decd. at the time of his death had any interest whatever in said South East qr. of sec. 2 Town 6 North, Range 9 West, or of, or in any of the premises in this answer mentioned and set forth.
These respondants further state that the said purchases in this answer mentioned through and under said while sole as aforesaid and from through and under said and her said husband Lewis C. Bidamon after her said Marriage with him were made in good faith and for valuable consideration as before herein stated bonafide
That said purchases were made on account and by reason that the said conveyances in complainants bill mentioned from said Joseph and to said Joseph Smith as trustee of said Church in said bill mentioned as they were advised was illegal and void for want of sufficient parties thereto and that the title thereby to said premises still remained in said ,
And for the purpose of obtaining the undisputed title thereof to the premises claimed by these respondants,
But whether the said deed was and is in fact so void in Law these respondants are unable to answer.
And respondants also claim by virtue of said conveyances last mentioned from said and from said and her said present husband Bidamon title in fee, according to the import of said conveyances.
Respondants are now informed in relation to the deed in said bill mentioned from Joseph Smith and to said Joseph Smith as [p. 556]