Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Department of Agriculture, Emergency Crop and Feed Loans v. Remund

#

ate

eon oe cee

Qier - Sovreme Cru, US

RID

mut cory , ALG 19 1908

a hee MS ;

No. 417 aay :

7 ise a

“ __Ooromen Tena, 1946

ee » ‘ -__ CO

Uwe SratEs. DEPARTMENT or AcniovLro,

: , Rucapiaot Onap ate Fei Lounn rere

3& . ‘ © ee 4

ee 4 RRancono As, ADMINISTRATOR O THE |

Primes Na lac som iV gE le?

*

or anna culalia armbacin vi einai

| , COURT OF TRE SEATS OF SOUTH BAKO Fy

el 35

=

— ~s —-

= ~

. . > :

\ >.

Pon

| / INDEX

Page

Opinion below - -----. De aoa zp ene a AOR eee opie.

Jurisdiction. ------- Poe ales L Ae foes it =: 2

Question presented. - ---- re cea aie f - 3

Spaaucwvoved iene’ -2 aide ss 3

NT aE Tee = et ; P 3

Specification of errors to be t urge red apis 5

Reasons for granting the writ... ._-. : s . 6

Conclusion ae Moet epee Pas P 13

% CITATIONS - :

Cases:

*” Alderman: v. New York Underwriters Insurance Co., 618

oy , S 8

Cherry Cotton ‘Mills v. “United States, No. 187, Oct. T., 1945 ),

decided March 25, 1946... ---- a aes 8

Dickson’s Estate, Irt re, 197 Wash. 145, caetace x 8

E. 1. duF ¢ Nemours & Co. v. Davis, 264 U. S. 456. --- 8

Federal wan Administrator v. Moore, 90 ¥. 2d 32-- - - 8

Federal Reserve Bank ef Dallas v. Smylie, 1348. W. 2d 838. 7,10

Fortier v. New Orleans National Bank, 112 U. Ss. 439 ce 8

Graves v. O’ Keefe, 306 U. 8. 466- \ Tae ee 10

Hanson Bakeries, In re, 103 F. 2d 665. ape ise 7

Illinois ex rel. Gordon v. United States, No. 749, Oct.

1945, decided April 22, 1946. - ie _ 9, 11, 12

Inland Waterways v. Young, 309 U. : 517. : — 8

Korman v. Federal Housing ‘Alenitiateater, 115 F. 2d 748.. 8,9

McCandless v. Furlaud, 293 U. 8. 67__.. a 8

National Home for Disabled Volundcer Soldiers v. W read, 8!

F. 2d 963, affirmed, 299 U.S. 211.. ---- 8

North Dakota Wheat Growers v. United States, 66 F. 2d 573. 9

Person v. United States, 112 F. 2d 1, ce rtiorari denied, 311

WU. 8. 672. ...----------------------22-----" re, oes 7

Piitman v. Homie Owners’ Loan Corp., 308 U. oe ee ah 10

Sloan Shipyards Corp. v. Fleet Corporation, 2: 58 U. 8. 549.. 9

State ex rel. Cook v. Board of Commissioners, 295 D 358: . 8

United States v. Dobbins, 139 F. Dage 169. _. - pee 7

United States v. Emory, 314 U. 8. 423--

2, 2,9, 11,12

United States v. Fontenot, 33 F. Seon. 629. as oe 7,9

United States v. Guaranty Trust Co., 280 U.S. 478 10,14

United States'v. Knott, 298 U. 8, 544... - 2,11,12

United States v. Marren, 307 U.S. 200.- 8

711073 —46——1 (1) ,

e

: a

° ~

“= @

“4

P

']

a

Cases—Continued < : Page

United States v. Su Ma, 310 0. B GAA. ...........--- 10

United § v. Texas, 314 U. 8. 480. wh -------------- 12

Ui up Thomas, 107 F. 2d 765- - - - - PERE ERT OS,. Soe 7u

United v. Waddill Co., 323 U. 8. 353_........- 2,3, 11, 12

"agner Vv. McDonald, 96 F. Od 273} a <p eee ee 7,8

W. H. Shenners Co. v. Lake Worth Realty & Building Co. he

45 F. 2d 297, certiorari denied, 283 U. S. ~ BOTY: 8

Wilson, In re, 23 Ff. Supp. — ieee Kaas .°*

Statutes: ay aac

Act of February 23, 1934, 2.23, 48 Stat. EU a ae 14

, Act of June 19, #34, « c. 648, 48 Stat. 1021, 1056........--. 17

_ R. 8. 3466, 31 U.S. C. 101......! eae Cregeen »--- 2,6,7,14

Transportation Act, 1920 (41 Stat. 456, 49 U_S. C. 71),

Te eked akae onan awe se:

South Dakota Code (1939) Sec. 96.1493.....:..---2------ 17 -

. j -

e ; © ~~ = . —s

° i

a.” J

tenga ‘cw

&

. ‘ oa r%&d

\ y

‘ ; :

“> | <a.

. S

ine, CN te

A iY . ” . : .

. *

ieee - R

nthe Supreme Gonrt of the Gnited States

a OcronER Term, 1946

No. 417

Unirep States DeraRTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

EMERGENCY CROP AND FEED LOANS, —-

. | v. |

\

GrorceE G.\REMUND, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE

« .

Estate) oF WILHELM BUTTKE, DECEASED

COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA |

The Solicitor General on behalf of the United

States prays that a writ of certiorari issue to

review the judgment of the Supreme Court of the

State of South Dio entered in the apove-

entitled case on May

* “OPINION BELOW

The opinion of the Supreme Court of the State

of South Dakota ne Co is reported at 23 Ny W.

2d 281. The Ci

Circuit of South\Dakota and the County Court of

Roberts County, South Dakota, wrote no opinions.

a)

>

os

it Court of the Fifth Judicial ..

——>

-

JU —

ae

The ‘abetted of the Supreme Couit of South

Dakota was entered on May 20, 1946 (R. 30-31).

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under

Section 237 (b) of the Judicial CBile as amended

by the Act of February 15, 1925, on the ground |

that the decision denied a title, right, privilege, or .

immunity ‘claimed by the United ‘States under

Section 3466 of the. Revised Statutes. . The’ cases

relied upon to sustain the jurisdiction of this

Court are United States v. Knott, 298 U. S. 544 ;

United: States:v. Emory, 314 U. 8..423; and

United States v. Waddill Co., 323 U. 8. 353. :

The court below held that; in a probate pro-

ceeding in the County Court of Roberts County,

South Dakota, priority of payment under .

R. S. 3466 was properly denied to a claim asserted

~ by the Farm Credit Administration, « on behalf of

the United States, ‘based upon Emergency Crop

and Feed Loans made to the decedent pursuant

to the Acts: of. February 23, 1934, and. June

19, 1994." 030. A

‘ The United States asserted its right under .

R. S. 3466 to priority in payment at the time it

filed its claim with the réspondent Administrator.

Upon denial .of the. claimed preference by re-

spondent, the claim for priority was successively

urged upon and rejected by the County Court

of Roberts yr (R. i by-the Circuit Court

t

2

OP ine see

3

for the Fifth Judicial Cireuit (R. 19), ard by the -

’

Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota (R.

21-30). eat | oe

The question presented is ‘oné of substance

(United States v. Emory, 314 U. S. 494. Uiited-

_ States v. Waddill Co., 323 UeS, 353), as is more fully

developed- undey the reasons for: granting the

writ (infra, pp. 6-13). .

bo’ QUESTION PRESENTED _

Whether, in a state probate proceeding, a claim

asserted by the Farm Credit Administration and

certain of its officials for and on behalf of: the

United States is entitled to priority under Section

3466 of the Revised Statutes. |

STATUTES INVOLVED

The relevant: portions of the statutes involved

are. set forth in the Appendix, infra, pp. 14-18.

STATEMENT

The facts are undisputed, and may be sum-

marized as follows: Pursuant to the Acts of Feb-

tuary 23, 31934, and June 19, 1934 ( Appendix, |

infra, pp. 14-17), the Gayernor of the Farm Credit

- Administration extended loans to Wilhelm Buttke

totaling $370.00 (R. 5-8). Eighty dollars of ms

amount was evidenced by a 514% interest-bear-

ing note, payable on or before August, 13, 1935,

and bearing on its face the printed notations:

“This instrument giverf to the Governor, Farm

Credit sa acting pursuant to the act

€

+

we

eo ee

of Congress approved February 23, 1934’ and;

‘This note is given as evidence of a loan made by —

the fiovernor of the Farm Credit Administration,

_ which loan is secured by a lien instrument. cover- |

ing personal property” (R. 5). The remaining

$290.00 loaned to: Buttke was evidenced by ‘six.

542% ‘interest-bearing notes, payable on or before:

November 1, 1935, each note bearing on ‘its face

° the printed ssidiotionn: “This instrument given to

the Governor, Farm Credit Administration, act-

ing pursuant to the act of Congress approved

. June 19, 1934,”’ and “This note is given as evi-

dence of a loan made by the Governor. of the

Farm Credit Administration’? (R. 5-8): On De-

cember 26,-1941, Wilhelm Buttke died -intestate,

leaving an estate insufficient to pay all of his debts

.(R, 9). On: March 2, 1942, there was filed in

the’ County, Court of .Roberts County, South

. Dakota, a,claim against jButtke’ s estate for

$523.80, by “John T. Ashford, Manager, Emer- &

gency U:up and Feed Loan Office, Farm Credit

--.- Adminjstration, Omalia, Nebraska, an authorized

agent for the Governor, ‘Farm Credit Admin-

istration, for and on behalf. of the United ,

- States of America’ (R.@4). Accompanying the

claim was a mimeographed “memorandum” from.

the: Farm Credit Ad:inistration, ‘Emergency

Crop und Feed Loan Office, Omaha, Nebraska,

asserting priority on behalf of me United States

“under R. S. 3466 (R. 1-2)... On October 31, 1942,

the Courity Court, in its ‘Order approving final:

report, firial decree’ and discharge of adminis- -

trator,’ denied preference to the claim, but

allowed it in the sum of $79.53 as the pro rata

share of a claim.of a common creditor (R.

-» 12-16). On appeal, under the caption “VU. S. De-

. partment of “Agriculture, Emergency Crop and

. Feed, Loans,”? the decision of -the County Court.

was affirmed by the Circuit Court of the Fifth

Judicial Circuit of South Dakota, and by the —

Supreme Gpurt of South Dakota (R. 18-19, 21-30).

' SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS TO BE URGED”

The Supreme Court of South Dakota erred:

.1. In holding in substance that a claine filed in

"the name of the Rétm Credit Administration or

‘its officers “for and on behalf of the United

States” is not a claim filed by the Unittd States.

2. In holding that the Farm Credit-Administra-

‘tion is an entity separate and distinct from the

United States, having independent power’ to sue.

3. In hdlding that claims of the Farm Credit

Administration based upon loans made under the

Acts of February. 23, 1934, and June 19, 1934, are

1 The memorandum was addressed to “All Receiv ers, Ref-

erees, ExeéutoPs, Administrators, Assignees, and Courts *

Dealing with Insolvent, Bankrupt, or Deceased Borrowers of

the Emergency Crop and Feed Loan Office, Farm Credit

Administrati ion, Omaha, Nebraska.”

6

not “‘debts due to the. United States”. within the

meaning of R. S. 3466.

4. In holding that claims of Farm Credit Ad--

ministration. based upon loans under the Acts of

February 23, ‘1934 and June 197 1934 are not

wre to priority under R. S. 3466. )

- In denying priority to clainis of the United .

States =

| 6. In affirming the judgment of the Circuit. .

Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit of South

_ Dakota. -

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

-R. S. 3466 provides that “whenever the estate

of any deceased debtor * *.* is insufficient

to pay all the: debts due from the deceased, the

debts due to the. United States shall be first .satis-

ae. (Appendix, infra, p. Jy. The

court below, intimating that the claint here in-

_ volved was not a “debt due to the United States,”

because asserted in the name of the Farm Credit

Administration, denied preference to the claim.

upon’ the independent ground that the statutes

under. which the claim originated had carved out -

_ exceptions to R. S. 3466.’ . This ruling upon an

impertant question of federal law is, we. submit,

clearly. erroneous and in conflict with the appli-

cable decisions of this Court as to'the scope of **

R.S. 3466. |

- # While the court only discussed the Act fim: 23,

” 1934, its deci ision applies to the Act of Jane 19, 1934, as well.

Thomas, 107 F. 2d 765 (€. ©. A. 5); Person v.

United States, ang F. 2d 1 (C. C, A.'8), certiorari

denied, 311 U. S. 672; In re W isons, 23 F. Supp.

236 (N: D. Tex. ); ; United States v. Fonte not, 33 -F.

" Supp. 629 (W. D. La); Federal Reserve Bank of |

Datlas v. Smylie, 134 8. W. 2d 838 (Tex. Civ.

“App.); ef. Wagner v. McDonald, 96 F. 2d 273 .

(C. C. A. 8); In re Hansen Bakeries, Inc., 103 F.*

2d 665 (C. ©. A.3);U nited States v. Dobbins, 139

. F. 2d 169° (C. C. A. 5). » And, although filed by

the Farm Credit Administration, the claim was a |

claim asserted by the United States... ‘Phe claim

itself specifically stated that it was a.‘‘claim of

the United States of America,” and that the Farm

Credit Administration was acting ‘for and on be-

half of the United States’’; the notes appended

to the claim all recited their origin in loans made

under federal statutes; and thé ‘‘memorandum”

attaclied-to the claim asserted preference under

Rey. Stat. 3466 for ‘‘debts due to. the United

States..’ In these circumstances, the claim was

clearly a elaim of, and made by, the United

States." Wagner v. MeDonald, 96 F. 2d 273 (€.

‘While the court below dil not expressly deny that the

- claim was a claim asserted by the United States, the opinion

~ states that the claim could be treated as such * ‘only by infer-

ence, explanation and argument” (R, 23).

‘ The circumstances that the appeal in the circ uit court was

captioned “United States artment of Agriculture, Emer-

geney Crop and Feed Loans instead of “United States,” is

711073--46--—-2 ¥

Y

1. The elaim here involved was plainly for **a:

debt due to the United States.’’ United States v. -

2 4

-

}

‘a

ar

©

8

C. A. 8); In ré Dickson’s Estate, 197 Wash. 145:

Korman v. Federal Housing Administrator, 13

F.2d 743 (App. D. €.) (semble) ; ef. BK. I. duPont}

de Nemours & Co. v. Davis, 264 U. S. 456, 459;

Inland Waterways v. Young, . 309: Ds os 517;

7 Cherry Colton Mills vy. United States, No. 187,

Oct, 'T. 1945, decided Mareh 25, 1946.

* immaterial here. The case was handled by the United States ©

Attorney 's Office af all tim®&, and was condue sth i in the same ,

nianner as any other suit of. the United States. (Cf. .Vationalg. .

Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers v. W ood, S14, 2d 963,

965 (C.C. A? 7), affirmed, 299 U.S. 211. The variation in

caption could in no way prejudice respondent. Cf. E. 7.

duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Davis, 264 U.S. 456, 459. In

any event, any question of the right of the Unitéd States to

sue in the name,of the-* ‘Department of Agriculture” is no

longer open to challenge, for it is w ell settted that after issue

is joined it is tog late to raise such a quest ion., Fortier v.

New Orleans Nat. Bank, 112 U. S439; Mel ‘andless v. Fur-

laud, 293 U.S. 67, 73; National Home for Disabled Volun-

teer Soldiers x. Wood, supra; W. H. Shenners C ° v. Lake

Worth Realty & Building Co., 45 F.2d 997 (€. C. J A. 7) .cer-

tiorari denied, 283 U0. S.833; Aidiinen v. Vew } "orks Under-_

writers Insurance Co., 61S. D. 284, 299; State.ex rel. Cookv.

Board of Commissioners, 29 S. D. 358. ;

°In Federal Housing eta erie v. Moore, 90 F. 2d 32

(C. C. A. 9), mentioned by the court below (R. 29), priority

in bankruptcy was denied a claim of the Federal Housing

Administrator, partly on the ground'that the claim was not

filed in the name of the United States. But, it does not ap-—

pear that the clainé there was filed, as here, on behalf of the

United States, or that the debt upon which the claim was

based jvas acquired by the Administrator acting for the

United States. Moreoyer, the decision of.the court turned

primarily upon the fact-that the debt was ‘assigned to the

Administ rator after the date of adjudication# See Wagner

¥. McDonald, supra, 96 FE. 2d at 276; In re Diekson’s Estate,

197. Wash. at 153; United States v. Margen, 307 U. S. 200.

» * Qg

. In denying priority, to this claim, the court

ak disobeyed ‘the: plain command. of §. 3466 -

that ‘debts due to the United States shall be first

satisfied’ ’’ (United States v. Emory, 314.U. S.

423, 426). Notwithstanding the repeated admoni- —

tion of this Court that ‘‘only the plainest’ inconsist-

* * ”

4 . . > , .

eney would warrant finding an im-

-; plied exception to the ope ration of so clear a com- ,

mand’? (United ‘States’ v. Emory, supra, at 433 ;

Illinois cx rel. Gordon v. United States, No. 749,

1945 Term, decided April 22, 1916), the court ‘be-

low, Without reliance upon any particular lan-

guage in the Act of February 23, 1934, and with-_

out referring to any of 188 legislative history, held

that the Act: gitve rise to an implied exception. to

R. 8. 3466. . The court relied, in part, upon siege

Shipyards: Corp. V: Fleet Corporation, 258 U.

549, which denied priority to a- claim of =

Fleet Corporation (R. 2526). But the Sloan case

clearly has no applica ation here, for it is only per-

tinent to claims asserted by .a corporate agency of

* the United ‘States (see Korman v. Federal Hous-

ing *Administrator, 113, F.. 2d 743, 746 (App. -

D. C.)); the Farm Credit Administration, here »

‘involved, “is merely. an administrative unit of |

government” (United States v. Fontenot, 33 F.

Supp. 629 (W. D. La.) ; Korman v. Federal Heus-

ng Administrator, supra, 113 F..2d at 746), with-

out corporaté personality, and without authority to

sue as an independent entity (North Dakota-

Montana — Growers Ass’nv. U nited States, 66°

e

co

10

F.2d 573 (CLC Ang); ; Federal Reserve Bank of Dal-

las v. Smylie, 134 8. W. 2d 838 (Tex. Civ. App.) )&

‘The court below alse relied upon United

States v. Guaranty Trust Co, 280 U. 8. 478,

- which denied priority to a claim based upon a

_ loan to’a. railroad under ,Title II of the Trans-

poration Act, 1920 (41 Stat. 456, 457-469, 49

U.-S. C. 71 et seq.) (R. 27). That Act, designed

to promote the stability of the railroads for the

national. benefit, provided that the Government

should, to ‘a certain extent, finance the carriers —

until their ‘credit was restored; and this Court, ’

believing t that priority under R. 8. 3466 for such

loans would - impair rather than improve ‘the

credit of the railroads, held that to apply R. 8.

3466, would have ‘‘defeated the purpose of Con-

gress” (280 U. S. at 484-485). The court below

sought to assimilate the instant case to the Guar-

anty Trust case, suggesting that ‘knowledge of

priority of Government claims certainly would -

have been a handicap to a farmer ‘in using his

credit with local bankers afd investors’’ (R. 28).

* The court below also intimated that the lending activities

_ ofthe United States are commercial rather than govern-

mental in character (R. 23-25). ®ut all valid atts of the |

United States are necessarily governmental and sovereign in

character. Graves v. O'Keefe, 306 U. S. 466, 477; Pittman v.

, Home Owners’ Loan Corp., 308 U. 8. 21, 32. A contrary

‘folding i in respect of a Federil Housing Administration loan

by the =i Court of Florida was summarily rejected by .

this Court in [/nited States v. Summerlin, 310 U. 8. 414, 416,

reversing s. ¢4, 140 Fla. 475. ° se :

»

ll :

However, this misconceives the underlying pur-

pose of the statutes under which the loans here.

involved were made. They were granted to the

farmer so that he might plant anew crop.or pre-

serve his starving livestock; the amount of. the

_ loan was impressed with a trust to accomplish

that purpose; and the loans were made only when .

he could not borrow elsewhere (Appéndix, infra,

p. 16; see United States vy. Thomas, 107 F.. 2d

165, 766 (C. C. A. 5)). Thus, the loans_ were ,

hardly intended as a- device for. maintaining

credit, and the court below, in concluding that the

Guaranty Trust, decision was ‘controlling in this ,

case,’ yas clearly in erro (R. 28). a

, The Guaranty Trust we believe, represents

simply an isolated exception carved out of R. S.

3466 because of the unique character of the lend-

ing statute there involved. Certainly, since the

time of that case, the decisions in United States. |

v. Knott, 298 U.S. 544; United States v. Emory, .

- 314 U. S. 4233: United States v. Waddill Co., 323

U. S. 353; and Illinois ex rel. Gordon Vv. United -

States; supra, decided April 22, 1946, which dealt

with other situations, haye charted a wholly

different course. Thus, in the Knott case the

United States was given priority for debts due

on estreated bail bonds; in the Emory omy

priority was granteg.to a Federal Housing

ministration claim based upon a loan insured

under the Federal Housing Act; in the Waddill

“e

en

12

case,“a claim of the United States was given

priority over a landiord’s lien and a municipal

tax lien; and in the Gordon case, a claim of the

United States for unemployment compensation

taxes was accorded priority over the state’s claim:

for unemployment compensation taxes. We be-

lieve that these later decisions, and particularly’

‘the Emory case, disclose that R. 8. 3466 is to be

‘applied in its full vigor, and that, before an ex-

ception thereto will be implied, the language or»

the legislative history of a given Act must

affirmatively and piainly show that the ‘priority

“ \.of the United States was to be waived. Since no

~)

such affirmative showing can be made here, thé

decision of the court below was clearly erroneous. °

3. The question pr esented in this case .is one of

substantial importance meriting review by this

Court. . If the decision“ below is allowed to stand,

it will undoubtedly encourage other state courts

to take a hostile view towards R. 8. 3466, and to

disregard its ‘plain command,”’ Kothavith respect

to claims arising under Farm Credit Administra-

tion statutes and claims arising under other fed-

eral statutes. See United States v. Knott, supra;

United States v. Emory, supra; United States v

Texas, 314 U. 8. 480; United Statgs v. Waddill

Co., supra. The Secretary of Agriculture advises

that claims of the character here involved, ‘based

upon “loans made by the Farm Credit Adminis-

tration” and “similar claims for loans made by’

7

“ia Mi

Solicitor General. .

* Avaust 1946. ° sd °

; - 4

=

/

Peay ) ,

é | vemose

\ f

ri.

Lm >

> .

8B

ye should be granted. .

13

the Farm Security Administration, arise con-

stantly and in the course of tite there will be

hundreds of such claims aggregating a large

amount of money.”” The Unitéd States Attorney

for the District of South Dakota advises that, as —

a consgquence of the decision below, the courts of

South Dakota are refusing to recognize claims

based upon loans of the Farm Credit, Administra-

tion as debts due the United States, and are ap-

plying state. statutes of limitations to bar prose-

_eution of such claims. : |

CONCLUS]ON

For‘the reasons stated, is respectfully sub-_

mitted that this petition*for a.writ of certiorari

+

J. Howarp McGratu,

1. R. S\3466, 31 U. S. C. 191, provides’ as _

follows: gl

Priority staiXixhed.—Whenever any

' APPENDIX

person indebted to United States is in-

'- solvent, or whenever the estate of any de-

a

2. The Act of February 23, 1934, ¢. 23, 48'Stat. -

354, provides as follows:

Be it enacted by*the Senate and Hause

- of Representatives of the United Statés of,

ceased debtor, in the hands of the exectitors

or administrators, is insufficient to pay all

due to the United States shall be first

satisfied ; and the prioritx,established shall

extend as well to cases in icb a.debtor,

not having sufficient property te pay all his

debts, thakes a. voluntary assignment

-thereof, or in which, the estate and effects

‘of an absconding, concealed, or absent

debtor are attached by process of law, 4

cages in which an.act of ‘bankruptcy is

committed.

America in Congress assembled, :That the

Governor of the. Farm Credit Administra-

tion, hereinafter in this Act referred to as

the ‘Governor’, is hereby authorized to

~ make loans\to farmers during the year 1934

for crop production, planting, fallowing,

and cultivation and, to the extent of not

exceeding $1,000,000, for feed for livestock

in drought- and storm-stricken areas.

Sec. 2 (a) A first lienfay all crops grow-.

ing or to be planteV or grown or harvested

(14 :

the debts due from the deceased, the debts

..

Xi rer ante

ay: | ;

durin? the year 1934, or on livestock, shall

be required as security for any such loan:

Provided, however, That in the case of a

loan for the purpose of summer fallowing

er the. production of winter wheat, a first ©

_ lien, or an agreement to give a first hen,

“ *on erops to be harvested in 1935 may, in

the discretion of the Governor, -be dee

sufficient security. Except as hereinafter

- provided, such loans shall be made through ‘

_ such-agencies, upon such terms and condi-

‘ tions, atid subject to such regulations as

the Governor shall prescribe. Recording

and other fees in cofinection with such loans

shall not exceed $1-in any ease, which shall

be paid by the Farm Credit Administra-

tion. Loans made pursuant to the’ provi-

sions of this Act shall bear interest at the

rate of not to exceed 514 per centum per _ |

. annum. For the purpose of collecting loans ~ is

made under this Act and under prior Acts

of the same general character, the Governor

may use thesfacilities and services of the

Farm Credit Administration or of any offi-

cer or officers thereof and may pay for such ~

services and the use of such facilities from

‘the funds made available under section 5 s

hereof for the payment of necessagy admin- *

istrative expenges; and suck-imstitutions are

hereby expressly empéwered to enter into |

agreements with the Governor for such

pu . s : 7 ;

( b) The amount which may be loaned

to any borrower pursuant to this Ag shall

not exceed $250 unless, in the opinion of

the Governor, the circumstances surround. -

inggthe loan are such as to warrant a .

larger amount, in which event the bor

rower shall be entitled to a loan not in ex-

_ cess of $400; Provided, however, That fale

Pp

~

-*

a

2

4

as

» Pix 16-

any area certified by the Presideat:of the

~ United States to the Governor as a dis-

' tressed: emergeney area, the Governor may

make loans withoyt regard to the fore-

going limitations, under such regulations

and for such time as he may prescribe.

therefor. | 7 ae,

(ec) No loan shall be made under this

-Act to any applicant who shall not have

first established to the satisfaction of the

' proper officer or employee. of the Farm

-Credit Administration, under such regula-

tions as the’Governor may prescribe (1)

that such applicant is unable to jrocure -

aos from. other sources a loan in an amount

reasonably adequate to meet his needs for

the purposes for which loans may be made

va ynder this Act; mad (2) that such applicant .

4 is cooperating directly in the crop produc-.

tion control program of the Agricultural

{ . Adjustment Administration or is not pro;

posing to inerease his 1934 production o

basie agriculturd? commodities in a manner

detrimental to the success of such. program.

» .» See. 3 (a) ‘The moneys authorized to be

‘ * Joaned by the Governor under this Act are

: — to be impressed with aig to

accomplish the purposes provided for’ by

this. Act, aaa the production, planting,

- fatlowing, cultivation of crops, and feed for

farm livestock, which trust shall continye i

until the moneys loaned ‘pursuant to this

Act have been/used for the purposes con-

a by this Act, and it shall ben-

\ lawful-for any person to make any material .

eat “representation: for the purpose of.

Obtaining any loan or to assist in obtaining

such loan or to dispose of or assist in dis-

posing of any crops given as security for

_ any loan made under authority of this Act,

>

17 eae

. ¢ : e lots.

except for the account of the Governor, and

for the purpose of garrying out the*provi-

sions of this Act. ia?

; * * ay * * :

3 The Act of June 19,.1934, c. 648, 48 Stat..

1021, 1056, provides as follows: pen eee

* a) : % Ge eo.

‘To meet the emergency and necessity

for relief in stricken agricultural areas, to”

remain available until June 30, 1935, $525,-

‘3 psec, te be allocated by the President to

-supplertent the appropriations heretofore -

made for emergency purposes and in addi-

tion thereto for (1) making loans to farm-—

: ers for, and/or, ¢2) the purchase, sale, gift,

\. er other disposition of, seed, feed, freight,

~ Summer fallowing and -similar purposes ;

expenditures hereunder and the manner in

which*they shal] be incurred, allowed, and

- paid, shall be determined by the President, .

and may include expenditures for gic yee

services and rent in the District o Colym-

bia and elsewhere and for printing” and ee

binding and may be made without regardto

the provisions of section 3709 of ie Revised

_ Statutes. : |

* i: ibe ae * * . oO

4. Section 35.1422, South Dakota ~ (1939)

provides as follows:

ent of Claims. - All de-

mands agai the estate of any deceased

person must be paid in the following order:

| The expenses of administration ;

) Funeral expenses, including reason-

able cost of burial lot, and not to exceed

fifty dollars for marker on grave; |

(3) The expenses of laft- sickness ;

18

(4) Any debt that may be due by de-

cedent personally to servants and employees < ,

for services rendered within the sixty days

next préceding his death’

(5) Debts having preference ‘by the.

laws of the United’ States ; : % |

. (6) All other demands against the

estate, except that where a lien for any

demand exists by mortgage, pledge, attach-

ments, judgments, or execution levy, such .

lien shall:have preference according to its

priority to the extent of such demand, on .

_any specifie property on which such: lien

shall have attached.”

U. 6. GOVERNMENT PRIMING OPTICE, 19466