Burleigh

(concurring).

I concur in the result on the ground that if we assume, without so holding, that statements or declarations amounting to fraudulent representations or the initiation of a conspiracy to defraud, by an .agent of the United States, I think such statements or representations are not binding on the United States or its instrumentalities. Wil *797 ber National Bank v. United States, 294 U.S. 120, 123 , 55 S.Ct. 362 , 79 L.Ed. 798 .

I concur with Judge HEALY’S opinion in holding that want of consideration was not shown.

The suit is on a promissory note executed . by appellee Burleigh in favor of the Secretary of Agriculture. The trial court denied recovery. D.C., 26 F.Supp. 938 .

By act of February 14, 1931 (Public No. 666,-71st Cong., 46 Stat. 1160 , Congress appropriated $20,000,000 to be used by the Secretary of Agriculture “to make advances or,loans to individuals in the drought and/or storm or hail stricken areas of the United States for the purpose of assisting in forming local agricultural-credit corporations, livestock loan companies, or like organizations, or of increasing the capital stock of such corporations, companies, or organizations qualified to do business with Federal intermediate credit banks, or to which such privileges may be extended * * * . The advances and loans made pursuant to this Act and amendment thereto shall be secured by liens on crops or by other security, under such rules and regulations as the-Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe.”

The rules of the Secretary, promulgated when the act became eífectivé, provided that in cases of loans to individuals for the purpose of increasing the capital stock of an agricultural credit or livestock loan corporation the…