Court Opinion

ID: 9470931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:20:52.319071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:11.322691
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
While I concur in the result, I do not concur in the per curiam opinion except footnote 3 thereof, in which I do concur.
Were it not for the new regulations mentioned in note 3,1 would deny all relief, for Hamrick had sold about $40,000 worth of crops out from under mortgages in favor of the government without consent and without applying the proceeds to his loans. I thus think the foreclosure is postponed only by the new regulations and otherwise he would not be entitled to any relief.
I think it is a mistake for the per curiam opinion to declare the policy of the government, for matters of policy are properly determined first by the legislature and only in the absence of any such determination by the courts. Twin City Company v. Harding Glass Company, 283 U.S. 353, 51 S.Ct. 476, 75 L.Ed. 1112 (1931). Until the new regulations were promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to Congressional authority, I do not think the plaintiff was in the class of debtors Congress intended to permit to make application for relief.