It is now August 27, 1906. Cora is confined to the State Hospital in Provo, having been judged by the courts to be insane. Her father, Isaac, has brought suit in the District Court as her guardian, petitioning to have the 1904 deed signed by Cora set aside and her land returned to her, on the grounds that she was incompetent when she signed that deed. The District Court judge, sitting without a jury (as agreed by both Isaac Birdsall and the Leavitts), has ruled in favor of the Leavitt’s, denying Isaac’s request to have Cora’s land returned to her. The District Judge has denied Isaac’s motion for a new trial. And on August 27, 1906, Isaac’s attorney files a Notice of Appeal, notifying everyone concerned that the case was being put in the hands of the three justices sitting as Utah’s Supreme Court.

As appellant in the Supreme Court phase, Isaac had to identify specific errors which he claimed the District Court had made. Those errors were:

1. That James E. Leavitt had not paid $100, or any other amount, to Cora in consideration for her deed (the money paid by Leavitt had gone to Cora’s sister Elsie May who, Isaac claimed, was not legally authorized to receive the money).

2. That Cora was insane at the time she signed the deed, so the deed was invalid.

3. That Leavitt, through the Church court system and its threat of excommunication, had used undue influence to compel Cora to sign the deed.

4. That Leavitt, through the Church court system and its promise that Cora would regain her health and happiness, had used undue influence to compel Cora to sign the deed, “which had been previously drafted without her knowledge or consent.”

5. Isaac also claimed that the District Court judge had made a number of technical errors, such as overruling objections to certain questions asked in court, permitting Leavitt to amend his pleadings, denying Isaac’s motion for a new trial, and so forth.

Isaac’s brief notes that no money had ever been provided directly to Cora, but had been given to Elsie May on behalf of Cora. it was important to decide whether Elsie May was acting on behalf of Cora, or on behalf of Leavitt. Because the deed had been drafted without Cora’s participation, because Elsie May had insisted Cora sign the deed even after Cora had refused, because Elsie May would now allow Cora to destroy the deed later, because Elsie May had decided in discussion with the elders and not with Cora that Leavitt should pay something for the improvements Cora had made, because Elsie May had no specific authorization from Cora to act on her behalf, because the money had been paid to Elsie May’s order, because Cora had no control over the money paid, and because the money remained in Elsie May’s hands, Isaac contended that Elsie May had been acting as an agent for Leavitt and not for Cora.

The District Court, Isaac claimed, had not actually ruled on whether or not Cora was insane at the time of the signing of the deed, but had only commented on her insanity at later periods. Isaac’s brief for the court extracted pieces of testimony from more than a dozen witnesses reporting Cora’s appearance and statements and behavior at or near the time she signed the 1904 deed. “While many of the witnesses testified that they believed her to be sane,” his brief read, “it will be observed that their opportunity for observation was very limited, in most instances to the two visits they made the day the deed was signed … On the other hand, the witnesses who testified that she was insane were her relatives and persons with whom she made her home and who were most interested in her, whose opinions are founded upon observations extending through a number of years.” Who, Isaac asked, was most apt to recognize Cora’s state of mind? He pointed out that even the elders who considered her sane “must have considered her condition serious, for they called and ‘administered’ to her at about noon and again [later in the same afternoon].”

Arguing that undue influence – unjust pressure – had been used against Cora to cause her to sign the deed, Isaac’s brief noted a number of factors:

1. Cora had refused for years to comply with the decision of the church court;

2. Nearly a year had passed since she was excommunicated for refusing to comply with that decision, and though being constantly persuaded by her sister, she had still refused;

3. All who were present when she signed the deed were elders – two, G.W. Coons and Bean, were Bishops; two, Christensen and Jensen, were members of the High Council who sat as judges in her church trial, and Christensen, the member of the High Council, and Bean, the Bishop, signed the deed as witnesses;

4. They were called there by Bishop Coons, to administer to Cora, and these particular persons were called because they were supposed to have most spiritual influence over her;

5. They all believed that they have some influence in curing bodily and mental sickness by the rite of administration;

6. They were spiritual and temporal advisors in the church of which she was a member and as such administered to her shortly after 12 o’clock; talked to her about the decision and the signing of the deed; went back to church, some at least without taking time to eat lunch, and immediately after church returned, administered to her again, told her if she would comply with the decision which was to give the deed, she could be rebaptised, reinstated in the church and be just as good a Latter Day Saint as ever and that her health and former blessings would be restored to her;

7. While there they obtained her signature to the deed and acknowledgment before a notary public, also an elder, who had in the meantime been instructed to have the deed ready so that he could come while the elders were there, else appellant would not sign it;

8. They determined how the deed should be delivered; that the improvements should be paid for before delivery, how the value of the improvements should be ascertained;

9. There was nothing in the record, aside from the signing of the deed, where Cora was even consulted.

“We have attempted to show,” Isaac and his attorney said, “that the spiritual advisors were the agents of Leavitt, for by bringing the action, he sought their aid, and by accepting the benefits he ratified their acts.”

These, along with claimed errors in procedure, was the case that Isaac asked the Utah Supreme Court to decide.

For their part, Leavitt and his attorney went point by point through Isaac’s brief and either contradicted it or stated that, even if Isaac were correct, the Supreme Court should uphold the ruling of the District Court, citing previous court cases where local court rulings had been upheld in similar circumstances.

Regarding Isaac’s claim, for instance, that the witnesses who thought Cora was competent observed her for only a short period, while those who knew her better believed she was incompetent, Leavitt said: “The greater part of the evidence introduced by the plaintiff is from witnesses who are interested being relatives of the plaintiff, viz., father, mother and the sister.” This testimony was all impeached, Leavitt said, by the fact that the Birdsalls themselves held a deed, signed by Cora, to the remaining 80 acres of her property (a deed, however, which had evidently been prepared by Elsie May, who sent it to her parents through the mail unsolicited, and which the elder Birdsalls had never recorded). Leavitt claimed that those who said Cora was competent – the notary, for instance – were disinterested parties, and their testimony of Cora’s competence should outweigh the testimony of Cora’s parents who were too involved to be acceptable witnesses.

Also, Leavitt claimed, citing legal precedents, the moment of signing the deed was the proper time to contest competence, not these many months later. Nobody had contested Cora’s competence on the day the deed was signed, so it was too late for the Supreme Court even to consider the issue.

No undue influence had been exercised by him, Leavitt said. “For more than one year previous to the execution of the deed, [Leavitt and his wife] had entirely ceased to make any effort whatever, or to concern themselves in any manner, in order to obtain a deed to the land in question. They had been residing, during that time, at Fish Creek, near Kimberly in Piute County, and had neither directly nor indirectly made any inquiries concerning the land in question and the first intimation which they received upon this matter was in a letter through the mail from Mrs. Taylor, the sister of the plaintiff, dated 6-25, ’04, to the effect that the deed had been executed.” Whatever influence might have been exerted by Church leaders, whatever benefit Leavitt might have obtained through that influence, was no fault of his. Besides, he said, “undue influence implies something wrongful – it is not unlawful to give honest advice.”

Elsie May had not been working for Leavitt, Leavitt – even though Leavitt had benefited from Elsie May’s actions, Elsie May’s motives were all aimed at helping her sister. Leavitt hadn’t been involved in setting the terms for delivery of the deed – that all rested on Elsie May’s shoulders.

And so it went, through each of Isaac’s claims: The Supreme Court, Leavitt said, should allow the District Court ruling to stand, because Isaac had presented no clear reason for overturning it.

Their briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, there was nothing further for either Isaac Birdsall or James Leavitt to do but to wait for the decision of that court.

Well, that, and read the newspaper. I haven’t noticed anything in the Deseret News for this period, but the Salt Lake Tribune:

CHURCH HOUNDS WOMAN TO MADNESS

Mormon Dignitaries Force Her to Convey Land by “Spiritual” Pressure.

DISFELLOWSHIPPED, SHE LOSES HER MIND

Joseph F. Smith Takes a Hand in Depriving Cora Birdsall of Property.

That Cora Birdsall, a woman living in Sevier county, was driven insane by the pressure brought to bear upon her to compel her to deed forty acres of land to James E. Leavitt and wife by the authorities of the Mormon church, including the first presidency, is virtually the charge made in a case which was argued in the Supreme County yesterday. The case, by the sworn admissions of the girl’s bishop, also discloses the fact that the courts of the church interfere in temporal affairs, even in matters involving title to real estate, despite the fact that Joseph F. Smith and other Mormon dignitaries swore positively to the contrary in their testimony in the Smoot case. …

Nothing quite like dispassionate journalism, is there?

Isaac would have to wait until March, 1907, to learn what the Utah Supreme Court thought of the matter.