1. An agreement whereby an employer undertook to make specified
deductions from the wages of its employees as they accrued and to
pay over the amounts deducted to a welfare association maintained
on their behalf,
held to have created the relation of
debtor and creditor between the employer and the association as to
amounts which the employer had charged to the employees and
credited to the association but had not paid over to the
association as the agreement contemplated nor placed in any special
fund. P.
299 U. S.
121.
2. Upon the bankruptcy of an employer owing money under an
agreement of this kind,
held that the mere failure to pay
as stipulated afforded no round for fastening a constructive trust
upon the bankrupt's general assets in favor of the association. P.
299 U. S.
122.
80 F.2d 478, reversed. District Court affirmed.
Certiorari, 298 U.S. 647, to review the reversal of an order
disallowing a preferential claim in a bankruptcy case. Two appeals
were taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, one under § 47 and
the other under § 48, Title 11, U.S.C., these resulting in two
decrees of that court, to review which two writs of certiorari were
granted here.
Page 299 U. S. 120
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question relates to the propriety of a preference allowed in
a bankruptcy proceeding upon the ground of a constructive
trust.
The facts were stipulated. The bankrupt, Griggsby-Grunow, Inc.,
maintained an unincorporated welfare association, known as the
Majestic Employees Welfare Association, to provide life, health,
and accident insurance for its employees. The association was
governed by its own officers, and had its own bank account. The
funds of the association were invested in United States securities,
and the earnings and increment of these investments were used for
the contemplated insurance benefits. The initial membership fee of
one dollar and weekly dues of twenty-five cents were "automatically
deducted" from the wages of each employee who had been employed for
the required period. Before February 4, 1933, the bankrupt
regularly paid to the association the accumulations of each payroll
deduction, less such expenses of the association as were paid by
the bankrupt. From the date above-mentioned, the bankrupt fell into
arrears and until November 24, 1933, when receivers in equity were
appointed, there was always an unpaid balance to the credit of the
association. That balance at the time of the receivership amounted
to $14,607.51. The deductions from wages were made by charging the
employee's account on the payroll records of the bankrupt and
crediting the aggregate of all such deductions to the account of
the association on the books of the bankrupt.
"No actual money was taken from the pay envelopes of the
employees and deposited in any account of the bankrupt, but, to the
contrary, the matter was handled as a mere bookkeeping entry,"
and at no time did the bankrupt "segregate" any money due the
association or "deposit any money in any separate trust account
Page 299 U. S. 121
or bank account." The practice of the bankrupt was to deposit
all its incoming revenue in its general bank account, from which it
would from time to time withdraw moneys and establish various
special accounts. The bankrupt was accustomed to withdraw from its
general account or special accounts as the convenience of the
situation required, and the payroll was drawn from the various
accounts, both general and special, indiscriminately.
In August, 1933, the association was formally dissolved and,
after setting up a fund to cover certain contingent obligations,
all the other assets were conveyed to another unincorporated
association, known as the Majestic Works Council, in which the
bankrupt and its employees had equal representation. The Works
Council appointed the respondent, Maurice Paradise, as trustee and
authorized him to take proceedings to enforce its claim. It also
appeared that, subsequent to February 4, 1933, payment of the sums
due the association had been demanded, and that payment had been
requested from the equity receivers and refused.
The bankruptcy proceeding was begun in February, 1934, and
respondent petitioned for the allowance of a preferential claim
against the bankrupt's estate. The referee allowed the claim, but
his decision was reversed by the District Judge upon the ground
that there was no trust and that, even if there was, the trust
funds had not been traced into the hands of the trustee in
bankruptcy. This ruling was reversed by the Circuit Court of
Appeals, which held that a trust had been created, and that the
preference should be allowed.
In re Griggsby-Grunow, 80
F.2d 478. In view of the contention of the petitioner that the
decision was in conflict with applicable decisions of this Court,
we granted certiorari.
We think that the facts afford no adequate basis for the
conclusion that a trust existed. The underlying relation
Page 299 U. S. 122
was that of employer and employee. With respect to wages that
the employee earned, the relation was that of debtor and creditor.
By agreement, a part of the amounts thus becoming due as wages was
to be paid to the association. What would otherwise be a debt to
the employee was to become a debt to the association. Whether the
agreement be viewed as an assignment by the employee to the
association of the claim to the part of the wages as the latter
became due or as a novation, the result was that the bankrupt owed
the association the agreed sums. The book entries of debits on the
payroll records and credits to the association evidenced that,
understanding.
It does not appear that it was contemplated that the bankrupt
should accumulate or hold any fund. On the contrary, the practice
prior to February, 1933, was that the bankrupt regularly paid to
the association the agreed amounts. The later failure to pay did
not alter the nature of the transaction. The bankrupt was a debtor
which had failed to pay its debt. We know of no principle upon
which that failure can be treated as a conversion of property held
in trust. At no time throughout the whole period was there a trust
fund or
res. No fund was segregated or set up by special
deposit or in any manner. When the wages became due, there was no
such fund, but only the general assets of the employer and its
obligation to pay a debt. The agreement of the employer to pay the
association instead of the employee did not give to the employee or
the association equitable title to or lien upon any part of the
employer's property. The assets of the employer remained, as they
were before, general assets. It would be impossible to state all
the circumstances in which equity will fasten a constructive trust
upon property in order to frustrate a violation of fiduciary duty.
See 3 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, § 1044
et
seq. But the mere failure to pay a debt does
Page 299 U. S. 123
not belong in that category. We do not find that the record
shows anything more than that in this instance. Our observations in
Adams v. Champion, 294 U. S. 231,
294 U. S. 238,
to which the Court of Appeals refers, have no relation to such a
case.
See National City Bank v. Hotchkiss, 231 U. S.
50;
Blakey v. Brinson, 286 U.
S. 254;
Jennings v. United States F. & G.
Co., 294 U. S. 216;
Old Company's Lehigh v. Meeker, 294 U.
S. 227;
Edisto National Bank v. Bryant, 72 F.2d
917, 920. The fact that the failure to pay the association was an
acute disappointment, and was especially regrettable as the
claimant was an association of employees, cannot avail to change
the debtor into a trustee or enable the creditor to obtain a
preference over other claims against a bankrupt estate.
The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed, and that
of the District Court is affirmed.
Reversed.
MR. JUSTICE STONE took no part in the consideration or decision
of this case.