This suit was brought by respondent in the superior court for Polk county, N.C., to cancel a mortgage, given by her to petitioner, as invalid for want of consideration. It presents a question of the construction of the Federal Farm Loan Act of July 17, 1916, c. 245, 39 Stat. 360 (see 12 USCA § 641 et seq.), which was raised and decided upon an agreed statement of facts. Judgment for respondent was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state, 204 N.C. 278, 167 S.E. 856. The case comes here on certiorari. 290 U.S. --, 54 S.Ct. 53, 78 L.Ed. — (certiorari granted October 9, 1933).
On August 16, 1930, respondent applied to petitioner, through the Columbus Farm Loan Association, for a loan secured by mortgage upon her land, located in Polk county. The loan was approved by the loan association on October 1, 1930, and on that day respondent was admitted to membership in the association. In due course she executed a promissory note to petitioner, secured by mortgage upon her land, both of which she delivered to petitioner as required by the provisions of the Federal Farm Loan Act. The note, as the statute commands, bore indorsement of the agreement of the association to be liable upon it. Petitioner's check for the amount of the loan, less authorized charges, made payable jointly to the secretary-treasurer of the association and respondent, was delivered by petitioner to attorneys of the respondent together with a 'closed loan statement.' This statement was a detailed report of the loan transaction, including data of the disbursement of its proceeds and of fees charged by the association to the borrower. The secretary-treasurer was to fill out the statement after the loan transaction was completed, procure the borrower's signature to it, and return it to the bank. These documents were delivered by the attorneys to the secretary-treasurer, who, after the check was duly indorsed by the payees, deposited it in a bank to the credit of the association. At the time of the indorsement and before, respondent understood that the check was to be so deposited and the proceeds after collection were to be disbursed by the association for the purposes for which the loan was procured. The bank, immediately after collection of the check, closed its doors, and the proceeds of the collection, with an exception not now material, have not become available either to the association or the respondent.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, construing the provisions of the Federal Farm Loan Act, concluded that the association, organized under its provisions as an intermediary between the borrower and the petitioner, acted as a 'public agent,' and that the receipt by it and the deposit of the check for collection and credit, though it was first indorsed by respondent, was not a receipt of the loan by the borrower or in her behalf such as to establish liability of respondent upon her note.
The Federal Farm Loan Act was adopted in response to a national demand that the federal government should set up a rural credit system by which credit, not adequately provided by commercial banks, should be extended to those engaged in agriculture, upon the security of farm mortgages. The report of the Senate Committee which drafted the bill enacted as the Federal Farm Loan Act, Report of Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, No. 144, 46th Cong., 1st Sess., emphasizes as features of the proposed national rural credit system the creation of regional federal land banks under control of the Farm Loan Board. The banks were to make loans to farmers, upon the security of farm mortgages, with funds obtained in large part by the sale to investors of long-term bonds. See, also, Report of House Committee on Banking and Currency, No. 630, 64th Cong. 1st Sess. To adapt the system to local needs and to promote co-operation among borrowers, it was proposed that the loans should be made through local associations controlled by their membership, composed exclusively of borrowers.