The committee has agreed to the foregoing amendments, which were urged by those supporting the bill. The purpose of the amendments is to remove the requirement of filing in both the place where the buyer is located as well as in the State where the vehicle is domiciled. Since such a requirement would result in duplicate filing and would continue the uncertainty which the bill is designed to remove, the amendment to the bill has been agreed upon. That part of the amendment striking lines 18 and 19 on page 2 of the bill as introduced with respect to sections 20a and 214 of the Interstate Commerce Act is for the purpose of removing possible further questions as to validity of lien instruments subject to the bill. The jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission is settled, and compliance with sections 20a and 214 of the Interstate Commerce Act (providing that issuance of "securities" by a carrier must be approved by the Commission) has no application to lien instruments which would be subject to the bill. The Commission has held that 20a and 214 do not apply in the case of purchase documents for equipment. The leading case on the subject is In re Lehigh Valley Railway Company, 233 I. C. C. 359. Accordingly, compliance or noncompliance with sections 20a and 214 as a condition of validity has been deleted since it would be virtually impossible to determine prior to the execution of a purchase contract. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): "SEC. 213. Any mortgage, lease, equipment trust agreement, conditional sale agreement, or other instrument evidencing the lease, conditional sale, or bailment of one or more motor vehicles to, or evidencing a lien on one or more motor vehicles owned by, a motor, rail, and water carrier subject to any provision of this Act, if such instrument is valid and enforcible against creditors and mortgagees of and purchasers from the mortgagor, trustees, lessee, bailee, or buyer named in such instrument in the State in which such mortgagor, trustee, lessee, bailee, or buyer resides or, if a corporation or association, has its principal office, shall be valid and enforcible without further filing or recording in any State against any person or persons to the same extent that such instrument would be enforcible against such person or persons if the filing and recording statutes of such State applicable to such instrument had been complied with, notwithstanding any State law to the contrary.” 83D CONGRESS 2d Session SENATE { REPORT No. 1462 JOHN L. DE MONTIGNY MAY 27 (legislative day, MAY 13), 1954.-Ordered to be printed Mr. WILEY (for Mr. LANGER), from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1183] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 1183), for the relief of John L. DeMontigny, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with amendments, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. AMENDMENTS 1. On page 1, line 5, strike out the surname "DeMontigny", and insert in lieu thereof "de Montigny". 2. On page 1, line 7, strike out the figures "$384.84", and insert in lieu thereof the figures "$384.75". 3. On page 1, line 8, strike out the surname "DeMontigny", and insert in lieu thereof "de Montigny". 4. Amend the title to read: "For the relief of John L. de Montigny." PURPOSE OF AMENDMENTS The purpose of the amendments is to make the bill coincide with the facts as they exist. PURPOSE The purpose of the proposed legislation, as amended, is to pay to the claimant, John L. de Montigny, sergeant, United States Army (US55057148), Grand Forks, N. Dak., the sum of $384.75, in full settlement of all claims of the said John L. de Montigny against the United States for reimbursement of amounts collected from him by the United States as a result of certain overpayments which were made by the United States pursuant to a class Q allotment. STATEMENT On January 14, 1951, Private de Montigny executed and submitted to the Army authorities at Fort Lewis an appropriate form requesting the initiation of a class Q allotment, effective February 1, 1951, in the amount of $107.50 per month, to be paid to his mother on account of his parents' dependency upon him for support. The amount of $107.50 consisted of a $40 deduction from the pay of the soldier and the additional sum of $67.50 as the monthly quarters allowance for a private with two dependents. On the same date, Private de Montigny requested the initiation of another class Q allotment, effective February 1, 1951, in the amount of $17.50 per month, to be paid to his mother as guardian of two of his minor brothers, whom he also claimed as dependents. The amount of $17.50 was the additional monthly quarters allowance for a private with more than two dependents. The request for the initiation of the allotment in the amount of $17.50 per month was disapproved, for the reason that the brothers were not within the class of persons eligible as dependents under the provisions of the Dependents Assistance Act of 1950. The other allotment, on account of Private de Montigny's parents, was approved on the basis of the local disbursing officer's tentative determination of the dependency of the soldier's parents, pending a final determination of dependency. The report of the Army states, in part, as follows: After the initiation of the above-mentioned allotment, the Dependency Division, Army Finance Center, requested that Private de Montigny's parents submit evidence to establish their status as the soldier's dependents. The affidavit submitted by the parents, dated February 26, 1951, showed that neither parent was employed; that the parents had 4 sons (not including Private de Montigny), of the ages of 18 years, 16 years, 15 years and 11 years, respectively; that the, oldest of those sons (Armande de Montigny) was then employed temporarily; that the other 3 sons were students; and that the income of the parents for the past year had consisted of $455 in wages and $320 in unemployment or disability compensation. On July 9, 1951, Mrs. de Montigny submitted a letter in which she stated that the soldier's father was then temporarily employed. On August 31, 1951, it was determined by the Dependency Division, Army Finance Center, that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that the soldier's parents were dependent upon him for more than one-half of their support and that there was, therefore, no authority for the payment of a quarters allowance on account of dependency. Accordingly, the class Q allotment being paid to the soldier's mother was discontinued effective August 31, 1951, and Mrs. de Montigny was so advised. The soldier was required to refund to the United States the sum of $384.75, the total amount paid as his quarters allowance on account of his parents for the period from January 10, 1951, to June 30, 1951. It appears that there was withheld from his pay the additional sum of $135, which sum had been paid to his mother in the class Q allotment for the months of July and August 1951. Subsequent to the notification of Mrs. de Montigny of the discontinuance of the class Q allotment, she submitted to the Dependency Division, Army Finance Center, a request that the claim for the allotment be reconsidered, and submitted further evidence concerning the dependency of herself and her husband upon the soldier. That evidence showed that Armande de Montigny, the son who had been employed in February 1951, had been called to active duty in the Air Force and had established no class Q allotment in favor of his parents; that the soldier's father had been employed for only a short time in July and September 1951, and had earned only about $500; that one of the soldier's younger brothers had been stricken with infantile paralysis in July 1951; that Mrs. de Montigny was then ill and in need of medical care; and that the soldier's father suffered from hypertension and a lumbosacral strain, and could not obtain steady employment. In view of this additional evidence, it appeared that the parents were in fact dependent upon the soldier for more than one-half of their support, and, accordingly, the soldier (then a sergeant serving in the Far East) was advised that if he would submit a request for a class Q allotment, the matter would receive further consideration. On May 21, 1952, Sergeant de Montigny submitted to the Army authorities a request for the payment of quarters allowance on account of his parents, retroactive to September 1, 1951. On June 5, 1952, he submitted an authorization for the deduction of $60 per month from his pay, effective June 1, 1952, to be paid as a class Q allotment to his mother, and authorized the increase of such allotment to the sum of $127.50 per month if his request for payment of quarters allowance should be approved. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, it was determined by the Dependency Division, Army Finance Center, that Sergeant de Montigny's parents were dependent upon him for over one-half of their support. Accordingly, there was initiated on behalf of the soldier a class Q allotment in favor of his mother, in the amount of $137.10 per month, the quarters allowance for a sergeant with two dependents having been increased to the sum of $77.10 per month. It is the view of the Department of the Army that, had evidence of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the dependency of the soldier's parents been submitted to the Department before the initial class Q allotment was discontinued, the dependency of the parents upon the soldier for more than one-half of their support could have been established and the soldier would not have been required to refund to the United States the sum of $384.75. The Army further states that the claimant is equitably entitled to receive the sum of $384.75 and has no objection to the enactment of this legislation. The committee, after a review of the evidence as contained in the report of the Department of the Army, reaches the conclusion that the legislation providing for a refund of $384.75 to the claimant herein is justified, and recommends that the bill, S. 1183, be considered favorably. Attached hereto and made a part hereof is the report of the Department of the Army dated November 6, 1953. Hon. WILLIAM Langer, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., November 6, 1953. United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR LANGER: There was referred to the Department of the Army, for consideration and direct reply to you, the request made by you upon the Attorney General for submission to your committee of a report on the merits of 8. 1183, 83d Congress, a bill for the relief of John L. De Montigny. This bill provides as follows: "That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to John L. De Montigny, sergeant, United States Army (US55057148), Grand Forks, N. Dak., the sum of $384.84, in full settlement of all claims of the said John L. De Montigny against the United States for reimbursement of amounts collected from him by the United States as a result of certain overpayments which were made by the United States pursuant to a class Q allotment." The records of the Department of the Army show that John Louis de Montigny (referred to in S. 1183 as John L. De Montigny) was born on January 1, 1929, at Belcourt, N. Dak., being the son of Mr. John L. de Montigny and Mrs. Marie Clara de Montigny. On January 10, 1951, at Fargo, N. Dak., he was inducted into the Army of the United States in the grade of private, and was assigned Army service No. US55057148. At the time of his induction into the Army he was unmarried and his home address was Route No. 2, Grand Forks, N. Ďak., where his parents also lived. Following his induction into the Army this soldier was assigned for duty at Fort Lewis, Wash. On May 10, 1951, he was promoted to the grade of private first class, and on August 11, 1951, he was promoted to the grade of corporal. In September 1951, Corporal de Montigny was sent overseas for service in the Far East; he was promoted to the grade of sergeant on |