# Brief for Petitioner — Department of Agriculture, Emergency Crop and Feed Loans v. Remund > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386450_0191%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief for Petitioner - **Published:** January 1, 1947 - **Citation:** 330 U.S. 539 ## Text . .- i ° j 7 x . Am tow ate atte Stes - = Dorms Gaur, Uk | . POLLO H % JAN 24 1947 CAIRLES ELvont oat te ll bd mcs egy ores! See FILE COPY. Ge. # No. 417_ ie th | Sue Soprne Gute het Sat ~ OcTOBER TERM, 1946 | Unive Seires DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTURE, _. EMercency Crop AND FEED ‘LoANs, PETITIONER © v. il Grorce G.. REMUND, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE Estate or WiLHELM BuTTKE, DECEASED ON WRIT OF ‘CERTIORARI TO THE SUPRBME.COURT OF THB : STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA ' \ BRIEF FOR -THE PETITIONER - os J ‘ INDEX ~ : Page Opinion below... -.-..----------- wee cescoee Secewcce----cee 1 Jurisdiction... ..-...----------------20--------------2-- 1 Question presented... ....... .----------e0--------------=- 2 Statutes involved nage loncadadnchedescequssdnesccecececse 2 Meatembent.... The manner in which the claim was filed satie- fies the requirement of the statute.....Stamford Auto Supply Co., 25 BF.’ a Supp. 530 (N. D, Texas) ; In re Weil, 39 F. Supp. 618 (W. D. Pa.); In re Dickson’s Estate, 197 "Wash. 145. Cf. Herren v..Farm Security Ad- ministration, 153 F. 2d 76 (€. C. A. 8). Moreover, although the claim was filed in the * _ name of the Governor of the Farm Credit Ad- ministration, he has no personal interest in the “claim nor does he claim ownership of the debt in his own right; he is an agent of the United ' States, and his acts in so far as they are author- ized are in legal effect the; acts of the United States. Accordingly, he is at-most only a nominal 18 ’ -elaimant, and the court below should have looked through him to the real claimant and treated the claim as one made by the Government. Wag- ner v..McDonald, supra, at 276; North Dakoéta- Montana Wheat Growers’ Ass’n v. United States, _ 66 F, 2d 573 (C. C. A. 8); In re Wilson, 23 F. Supp. 236 (N. D. Tex.); ef. State Highway Com- mission of Wyoming v. Utah Const. Co., 278 U.S. 194; E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. Vv. Davis, 264 U. S. 456, 459; Kansas v. United States, 204 — U. 8..331; Herren v. Farm. Security Administra- _tion, supra; National Home for Disabled Volun- teer Soldiers v. Wood, 81 F. 2d 963 (C. C..A. 7), affirmed, 299 U. S. 211; United States v. Golden, / 34 F. 2d 367 (C. C. A. 10); Schroeder v. Davis, J $2 F. 2d 454.(C. C. A. 8).° ‘3 | ~ 3. In any case, respondent was not prejudiced by the fact that the claim was filed in the name . of the GoWernor, Farm Credit Administration, fs rather than in the name of the United States. “Cf. f° BE. I: du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Dams, 264 fi 'U. 8. 456, 459. Such variation is purely a formal. matter which, since it has not been raise! in the lower courts, is no longer open to challenge, .for it is -well settled under’ both federal and South Dakota law that after issue is joined, the raising of suck a question is barred. Fortier_v. New Orleans National Bank, 112 U. 8. 439; McCand- less V. Furland, 293 U. 8. 67, 73; National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers v. Wood, 81 F. £, 19 2d 963 (C. C. A. 7), affirmed, 299 U. 8. 211; W. H. Shenners Co. v. Lake Worth Realty & Building Co., 45 F. 2d 297 (C C. A. 7), certiorari denied, 283 :U. S. 833; Alderman v. N. Y. Underwriters’ Insurance Co., 618. TD. 284, 299, and cases there cited; State ex rel. Cook v. Board of Commis- ; sioners, 29 S. D. 358. II DEBTS DUE THE UNITED STATES ON LOANS MADE PURSUANT TO ACTS OF FEBRUARY 23, 1934, AND JUNE 19, 1934, ARE ENTITLED TO PRIORITY UNDER *R. 8. 3466 This Court has repeatedly ond consistently held that R. S. 3466 is a statute enacted to secure ade- quate public revenues to sustain the public bur- den * and is to be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose. United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358; Harrison v. Sterry, 5 Cranch 289, 298-299; United States v. State Bank of North Carolina, 6 '. Pet. 29, 35; Beaston v. Farmers’ Bank, 12 Pet/102, 134; Bramwell v. United States Fidelity and Guar- anty Co., 269 U. 8. 483, 487; Price v. United States, 269 U.S. 492, 500; United States v. Marzen, 307 _-U. 8, 200, 206; United States v.\Emory, 314 U. 8. 423, 426. Moreover, the language of ,the statute, * That the rule of liberal construction applies to ‘ald claims - involving debts due. the United States seems too clear to warrant discussion. See United States v. Knott, 298 U. S. 544; United States v. Emory, 314 U. S. 423; United States v. Waddill Co., 323 U. S. 353; see also, Jnland Waterways v. Young, 209 U. 's. 517; ; Cherry. Cotton Mills v. United States, 327 U. S. 536. ? ’ \ 20 \ which admits of no exception, is so clear that there -is but little room for construction. Thelluson v. Smith, 2 Wheat. 396; Lewis, Trustee v. United — States, 92. U. 8. 618, 621; United States v. Emory, 314. U.S. 423,426 ; United States v. Waddill Co., 323 U. 8. 353, 355; Illinots ex rel. Gordon v. United States, No. 749, October Term, 1945, decided April 22, 1946. It is only in'the presence of express language (Mellon -v. Michigan Trust Co., 271 U. S. 236) or. of a basic inconsistency with the avowed purpose of a particular statute (Cook | - County National Bank v. United States, 107 U.S. - 445; United States v. Guaranty Trust Co., 280 U..S. 478) that this Court will conclusively pre- ‘sume a legislative intent to waive the priority con- ferred by R. S. 3466. It is in this setting, we ‘* submit, that the , doqicion below. should be examined. . - Although the claim here involved : is a debt due to the United States and there is no*provision in | the Acts of February 22 and June 19 expressly re- ws linquishing the priority of the United States with G respect to claims thereunder, the court below | found | air inconsistency between the purposes of these Acts and R. S. 3466 in that ‘‘knowledge of priority of Governme claims certainly would _ have been a handicap a farmer in using his credit with locai bankers and investors’’ (R. 28). Because’ of this * purported: inconsistency the - ®ourt below considered the present case, to be ‘‘practically an exact parallel with’’ United States - : S34 = ; “* ~~ o \ ea oe vy | 21 en ? Guaranty Trust Co., 280 U.S. 478, and hence * refused to apply R. S. 3466 to this debt (R. 28, : 30). . 0 i The_Guaranty Trust case involved loans ‘nade : to railroads under Title II of the Transportation _ Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 456, 457-469. That Act was. designed \to promote the stability of the railroads for the national — by providing for govern- ment financing of the éarriers to a certain extent until their credit | was restored. Since the loans — were for the ‘purpose of stabilizing the railroads, this Court there refused to apply R. S. 3466 on ‘the ground that priority in respect of such loans would impair, rather than improve, the credit - of the railroads, and thus according these. loans priority would defeat the purpose of the legis-. . lation (280 U. S. at 485). : - We submit that the purpose of the -Acts, here involved was not to restere the credit of the farmers; that there fs ¥ no such .inconsistency here, + as in the Guaranty rust case, between the pur- poses of these Acts and R. 8. 3466, as to require a denial of priority to debts arising thereunder; * and, further, that even if there were such an in- consistency; the Guaranty Trust case is neverthe- less not contralling. NOT TO RESTORE THE CREDIT OF THE FARMERS, AND HENCE I8 | _ NOT INCONSISTENT WITH RK. 8. 3463 e e ‘. THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTS OP FEBRUARY 23 AND JUNE 19 WAS The finding of the court below that debts: owed to the United States.on loans made pursuant to 22 the Acts of February 23, 1934, and June 19, 1934, are not entitled to priority is based*-on the Guaranty, Trust case, which it regarded as con- — trolling. But the purpose of the statutes here _ “involved, unlike the Transportation Act involved “in the Guaranty Trust case, was not ‘to restore the -eredit of the farmers, but rather to provide emer- gency relief to distressed farmers for the short period that they were unable elsewhere to obtain credit. ‘This is obvious not only from the express langtage of these Acts, but from their legislative history:as well. _ The Acts of February 23, 1934, and of June 19, 1934, were only two in a series of emergency seed and crop loan statutes, the primary objec- tive of which was to provide ‘“‘for relief of farmers in the drought and/or storm stricken areas * * #99 (46 Stat. 1032, 48 Stat. 354; ef. 45 Stat. 1306; 46 Stat. 78), and generally required as security only a first lien on all crops growing or to be grown. Of these statutes, the first was _passed in 1921 (41 Stat. 1347) and similar statutes .were enacted during that depression. 42 >. ‘Stat. 467; 43 Stat. 110; 44 Stat., ‘Part Il, 1245, *In' the Guaranty Trust case, this Court relied, as an ad- ditional ground for not applying R. S. 3466, on tie fact that the Transportation Act provided other means of secur- ing repayment of the Government’s advances (280 U. S. at 485). ‘That ground is inapposite here, since, in the ‘light ot uue-economic conditions then prevailing and the re- peated crop failures, a first lien on crops growing or to be - grown was clearly of dubious value. 23 - 1251. The large majority of statutes with accom- panying appropriations were enacted from 1929 to . 1935, during the depression period when farmers were suffering from repeated crop failures and ad- verse economic conditioris. 45° Stat. 1306, as _ amended by 46 Stat. 3; 46 Stat. 78, ‘as. amended by 46 Stat. 254; 46 Stat. 1032, as amended by 46 Stat. 1160; 46 Stat. 1276; 47: Stat. 5; 47 Stat. 795; 48 Stat. 1056; 49 Stat. 28; see also 50 . Stat. 5; 52 Stat. 27. The statutes passed early in this period did not require that the applicant be unable to secure credit elsewhere; in addition, | . they placed ‘either no limit (46 Stat. 78;.46 Stat. 1032; 46 Stat. 1276; 47 Stat. 795), or a high ceil- ing on the maximum permissible loan (45 Stat. 1306, as amended by 46 Stat. 3). However,. in 1933, the Farm Credit Act of that year, 48 Stat. 257, was enacted, establishing agencies for the ex- tension of credit to those farmers who were more or less sound credit risks. Thereafter, a limit was - placed on the amount of the loan” and if was re- © Although under the Act of February 23, 1934, the loans were normally limited to $250, the Governor of ‘the Farm Credit Administration’ was authorized to loan larger amounts up to. $400 if in his opinion the circumstances so ' warranted; these limitations were inoperative in thie case of loans to farmers in areas which the President. certified as. distressed emergency areas. Section 2 (b), Appendix, - infra, pp. 32-83. Such loans would, of course, be a greater credit risk and therefore authorization to make such larger . loans in those’ circumstances me?ely emphasizes that their , basic purpose was to provide relief. - 24 quired that the applicant must not be able to— secure credit elsewhere, A. ¢., from the Production Credit Associations, organized pursuant to the Farm Credit Act. Section 2 (c) of the Act of February 23, 1934 (48 Stat. 354) ; Section 2 (c) of 49 Stat. 28; Section 2 (a) of 50 Stat. 5; H. Rep. . No. 521, 73d Cong,., 2d Sess., p.1;8. Rep. No. 148, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 1. ’ The continuation of loaning facilities, after the creation of the Produe- tion Credit Associations; for farmers who were unable to obtain credit through such: assdciations indicates clearly the emergency relief natare of the loans here involyed. en “During the. consideration of the bills whieh sub- sequently became the Acts with which werdre here particularly concerned, the emergency relief aspect ‘of the loans was continually emphasized. The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry pointed out in its report that a large percentage of farmers would not qualify for loans under the Faim Credit Act, which requires stock, a financial ' statement, and unpledged property sufficient to __ justify the loan, and that withéut ‘hese seed loans, millions of farmers and farm laborers will have to seek other employment which would necessarily add to the ranks of the distressed and unem- ployed, 8. Rep. 148, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 1. In its Report (H. Rep. 521, 73d. Cong., 2d Sess.), the. House Committee on Agriculture re- ee > 25 - ‘ported the -bill favorably. In justifying that recommendation, thé Committee said (p. 1): “ae Your committee is well aware of the fact that. the various production credit associ- ations that are now being organized will serve a great purpose. These associations are to be permanent. It is not intenfled that crop production Joans made diréctly ® by the Federal’Government to the farmer - - shall be permanent but this bill is reported favorably by the committee at this time in_ the belief that it is necessary to taper off, so to speak, with loans of this character foh the year 1934, until the production erédit associations are well established and ‘the farmers are in a position to avai},them- selves of the benefits provided by these as- soviations. a / Under existing circumstances, these Fed- eral crop loans will reach a class of crop producers who possibly would not be able - at this time to procure loans from the pro- . . duction credit associations. Both the Senate and House of Representatives “were apparently in- accord with these Committee - - Reports’ (78 Cong. Ree. 1825, 1953, 1955, 1956), the general purpose of which was summarized by Representative Kerh, who said (78 Cong. Ree: - 1959) : 7 ee Let it be remembered that the Govern-~_ ment is not seeking to make an investment; this is simply an endeavor to finance the a . — .: | farmers of this country who are utterly | unable to: finance themselves.”. 1ere involved ‘‘was solely an act of’ grace by the sovereign to meét a temporary emergency which had grasped certain citizens _ and left them temporarily ii dire need of help.”’ Person v. United States, 112'F. 2d I, 2(C.C. 4.8), certiorari denied, 311 U. S. 672- The purpose of the legislation was ‘‘to create an agency to make | loans to distressed farmers. * * * The govern- " ment was not seeking by this legislation to enter business and make money. It we simply trying ” he ‘Such_a legislative history indicates that the to lend aid and assistance to farmers who had no | credit-and no money with whi¢h to purchase feed for their livestock and seeds for their crops.”’ United States v. ‘Thomas, 107. F. 2d: 765, 766 * (07 C: A, 5). Clearly then, the loans here in- volved were hardly intended as a device for main- taining credit, and the court below, in concluding s that the Guaranty Trust .case was “dontralling in this-case,”” was clearly in error -(R. 28). - to - need are small, whose financial condition is such t il for the extension of it Government through the. medium of, crop luction- pnd harvesting — loans; would require some other fo HH. Rep. No. 1707, 75th Cong., 3d Sess, 4 ’ - ’ ° | . - of . 3 - ° , x f f . ® eo ay . . ° o , . a hat they | ; tention that suppliers of goods and services would — - wa i : ee oe, B. THE GUARANTY TRUST CASE ah NOT ac niateniaied 1. Assuming, contrary to the foregoing, + gy the purpose of the loans was; as found by the court below, to restore the credit of the farmers, we submit, nevertheless, that the Guaranty Trust ease is not controlling, since under the more recent cases such purpose would appear not so incon- sistent with R. 8° 3466 ‘as to warrant the impli- ation that Congress. had intended to —— the priority.: United States v. Emory, '314 U.S. 423, re the applicability of R. S,-4466 tefloans made pur- suant to the National Housing Act. There, this Court expressly’ considered and rejected. the ¢on- refuse- to.extend credit if in/case of insolvency, they would be subordinated to the claims of the . United ‘States, and thus that the broad purpeses of the National Housing Act would be thwarted -if R. 8. 3466 were applied, saying: 3 - In the first place, whatever may be the | merits ofthe contention, it’ should be. ad- dressed to Con and not to this Court. In the second Digs the argument proves . too much. If it #’sound as applied to this kind of claim of the United States, it*is equally sound as applied to all claims as | to which the United States asserts priority _ under § 3466 (314.U. §. at 431). Although the Emon case did not expressly overrule “the Guaranty Trust case, it did limit ~ a . em : : - 58 } eae : ‘the application of the basic ground of decision . in that case, saying: “Only the plainest incon- i \sistency would> warrant our finding an implied . exception to the operation of so clear a ‘command - as that of §°3466. “We think such inconsistency: ‘is wholly wanting here” (314 U.S. at 433). That this represents the considered view of this Court ‘Reems clear. In United States v. Waddill Co., 323 U. S. 353, the applicability of R. 8. 3466 to an» F. H. A. loan was not questioned. In Illinois - ox rel. Gordon v. United States, No. 749, October Term 1945, decided April 22, 1946, this Coutt unanimously reaffirmed the Emory doctrine. \c- cordingly, we submit that the applicability of Guaranty Trust case has been so narrowed as - make it not controlling here. Furthermore, because of the unique character of the lending statute involved in the Guaranty Trust case, we believe that that cage is simply an _ isolated exception carved out of B. S. 3466. This ; view is supported by the subsequent decisions involving that statute which, although dealing with otlier situations, have charted a wholly dif- . ferent: course. These later decisions, and par- — ticularly the Emory case, demonstrate that R. S. 3466 is to be applied in its full vigor, and that, before an exception thereto, will be implied, the Aanguage and the legislative history of the pertinent - Act must affirmatively and. plainly show that *. the priority of the United States was intended to — aa “ 29 ~ be waived. Nosuch showing can be made here, and. the debt here involved is clearly entitled to priority. 2. The administrative interpretation of the Emergency Seed and Crop Loan Acts of Febru- — ary 23; 1934, and June 19, 1934, supports the view that the priority conferred. by R. 8. 3466. applies to loans made thereunder.. The Govern- | ment has consistently asserted priority under these Acts, both administratively through the Farm Credit Administration and the Department . of Agriculture * and in litigation conducted by the Department of Justice when unpaid loans have been referred to it for. collection.’ Owing — to the large number of claims asserted and col- lected, it A® inconceivable that Congress was unaware of the uniform practice of insisting on _ priority in respect of the payment of these loans 2 The form notification of the claim for' priority, appear- ing at pages 1 and 2 of the record, of itself discloses a settled administrative interpretation by the Department of ’ Agriculture and the Farm Credit Administration. 13 According to the figures supplied by the regional Emer- .gency Crop and Feed Loan Offices, these Offices have, since 1924, filed a total of 12,969 claims for priority in cases where the debtor is deceased. Of these claims, only 229 were in=~ itially denied, of which 171 were subsequently paid in full or part. ‘Thus, recovery hus been had on 12,911, or over 99% of the total number of. claims, the total collections amounting to $3,850,808.48. Of the 58 claims which initially were denied, 28 are still pending and the other 30 have not been pursued beeause the time for taking an appeal had been allowed to: lapse,’ because the estate was so insolvent as to indicate that no recovery could be had or because the amount - involved was too insignificant to warrant the cost of an ap- peal. It is interesting to note that although the Omaha af es ‘ 30 where the debtor is deceased.* ‘A long-continued. _ practice. of. this character should prevail even — were the soundness of such practice Jess clear. Inland Waterways Corp. v. Young, 309 U. 8. 517, — 24-525; United States v. Midwest Oil Co.,236 U.S. : 459, 473. a ae RE | _ CONCLUSION: : ne It is respectfully submitted that ‘the decision below should be reversed and the case remanded with instructions to allow the priority claimed ‘by the United States. ) / Georce T. WASHINGTON, Acting Solicitor General. HN F. SoNNETT, ~ ssistant Attorney General. Pau A. SWEENEY, ex ~ MELVIN RICHTER, ‘ | Puuir Evan, . Attorneys. ie vd J ANUARY 1947. “~ regional office which serves South Dakota, the state of origin ‘of the present case, has filed 2,212 claims, the present claim _was the first in which the agserted priority has been denied ; thére are now pending in'that region five additional cases ‘awaiting.the decision of this Court in the present case. 4 Congressional awareness of the difficulties surrounding the collection of seed and crop loans is evidenced’ by the ‘Act of December 20, 1944, 58 Stat. 836 (12 U\S.S., Supp. Vv, 1150), which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculturé to com- promise, adjust, or cance} these loans under specified condi- tions. This Act also authorizes the Secretary to cancel the ‘indebtedness where “the debtor is leveased * * * and there is no reasonable prospect of : btaining collection,” a situation which is not here present as collection may he effected in full in the instant case. ‘APPENDIX 1. R. S. 3466, 31 U.S. i 191, provides as follows: 2. oF" wm, Priority - | established.— Whenever any person indebted to the United States is in- solvent, or whenever the estate of any de- ceased debtor, in the hands of the executors — or administrators, is insufficient to pay all the debts due from the deceased, the debts due to thg United States shall. be first satisfied ; he the priority established shail extend as Well to.cases in which a debtor, not having sufficient property to pay all his ‘debts, makes a voluntary assignment thereof, or in which the estate and effects ~ ‘of. an abscondirig, concealed, or ‘absent debtor are attached by process of law, as to ‘eases in which an act of bankruptcy” is committed. | , 0 os 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 fore 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. Src. 2 (a) A first-lien on all crops, grow- _ ing or to be planted or or harvested (31) + The Act of February 23, 1934, c. 23, 48 Stat. 354, provides as follows: : Be it enacted by the Senate and House - of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Sa, ' 82 Bh geen during 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 pfopose of summer fallowing or the production of winter wheat, a first lien, or an agreement to give a first lien, on erops to be harvested in 1935 may, in the discretion of the Govérnor, be deemed sufficient security. Except as hereinafter provided, such loans shall be made through such agencies, upon such terms and condi- tions, and subject to. such regulations as the Governor shall prescribe. Recording and other fees in connection with such loans - - shall not exceed $1 in any case, 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 -made under this Act and under ‘prior acts of-the same general character, the Governor may use thé facilities and services of the Farm Credit Administration or of any offi- cer or officers théreof and may pay for such services and the use of such facilities from the funds made available under section 5 hereof for the payment of necessary admin- istrative expenses; and such institutions are- hereby expressly .empowered to enter into agreements with the Governor for such ur é ; ae r (b) The amount which may be loaned . to any borrower pursuant to this Act shall —~ not exceed: $250‘wnless, .in the opinion of the Governor, the circumstances surround- ‘ing the loan are such as to warrant a. larger amount, in which event the bor- ~ower shall be entitled to a loan not in ex- cess of $400; Provided, however, That in | any area certified by the President of the 5 wv . if P Fy 33 United States to the Governor as a dis-- tressed emergency area, the Governor may ~ make loans without regard to the fore- going limitations, under such regulations _ and for such time as he may prescribe therefor. Pari (ec) Na loan shall be made under this Act to any applican first established to the . f the proper officer or é yee of the Farm Credit Administration, yndeg such regula- tions as the Governor may prescribe (1) that such applieant is unable to procure from other sources a loan 5 reasonably adequate to meet his needs for the purposes ‘for which loans may be made - under this-Act; and (2) that such applicant is cooperating directly in the crop produc- tion control program of the Agricultural Adjustment Administratiqh or is not pro- . posing to Increase his 1 production of basic agricultural commodities in a manner ‘detrimental ‘to the success of such prograni. Sec. 3 (a) The moneys authorized to be loaned by the Governor under this Act are declared to be impressed with a trust to accomplish the purposes provided for by this Act; namely, the production, planting,” fallowing, cultivation of crops, and feed for — farm livestock, which trust shall continue until the moneys loaned pursuant to this ~ Act have been used for the purposes’ con- templated by this Act, and it-shall be un- lawful for any person to make any material false representation for the purpose of obtaining any loan or to assist in obtaining such loan or to disposébf or assist in dis- posing of any crops given as security for any loan made under authority of this Act, except for the account of the Governor, and in an amount - J 34 | a > for the purpose of carrying out the provi-..- sidns of this Act. . | ° 23 ek ae soa Z ” ‘ ob \ ~ : : * _3.-The Act>of June 19, on © 648, 48 Stat. 1021, 1056, provides as sy ae \ rae eee eee cae “Tee eS + To meet the emergency and necessity for relief in\ stricken agricultural areas, » to remain available until- June 30. 1935, $525,000,000, to. be allocated by ‘the Presi- ” dent to supplement the appropriations - heretofore made for eimérgency purposes - and@.in addition .thereto for (1). making | > wa loans to farmers for, and/or (2) jhe pur- - * ‘ehase, sale, gift,/or other disposition of, . seed, feed, freight, summer fallowing and similar purposes; expenditures hereunder andy the manner ‘in which ‘they shall be '°ineurred, allowed, and paid, shall be de- termined by the President, and: may in- « clude expenditures for ,personal . services ‘and rent’in the District of Columbia’ and elsewhere and for printing and binding: | and may he made without regard to the _.-provisions of section 3709 of the Revised , a Statutes. * bat 2s 7 ‘a eee a a * . N\ Tp . ov —.. sf & ~ wo 6 ‘ . . : or . —~ 4, Section 35.1422, South Dakota Code (1939) provides as follows: = ) i Order of Payment of Claims.: All de- ¢ ° mands against the estate of any deceased. — person must.be paid in the following order: (1) The expenses of administration ; ; (2) Funeral. expenses, inchiding reason- _¢, » + able cost of burial lot, and not to. exceed ““o % fifty dollars for marker on grave; —-- 1 _ (3) The expenses of last sickness; a > : * . ee Na Fe rs _ lien shall have -preference according to its’ cS" ° See 4 (4) Any debt that may be due by de- ‘eedent personally to, servants and em- -ployees for services ig ‘within ‘the - of the United States; - _ any speci _ Shall have relat Vin sixty days-next preceding. his death ;. (5), Debts having pre “\. by the laws — (6) All other -demands ments, judgments, ‘or execution levy, such priority tqthe gxtent of such demand, on oe rty on which such lien ched. es io ™“s H, S. GOVERMENT PAINTING OFFICE 1947 r inst the es- - tate, except that’ where a lieri for any . _ demand exists by mortgage, pledge, attach- ss --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386450_0191%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.