Court Opinion

ID: 9445524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:31:46.563815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:18.598661
License: Public Domain

HINCKS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in all respects with Judge Leibell’s opinion. I add these few words only to make it plain that in my opinion the indicated result is required not only because the debts for which the statutory priority is claimed are not “wages” but also because they are not “due to workmen, servants, clerks, * * To me it seems self-evident that the appellant-Fund is not a workman. Nor have any of the “workmen” assigned their claims *379to the appellant. It appears to me wholly inadmissible to say that the appellant is an “equitable assignee” of “workmen” when, as the appellant truly says in its brief, no employee “has any right, title or interest in the trust fund, except the right to insurance coverage and welfare benefits”; and “No employee has an option to receive any part of the employer’s contribution in lieu of insurance benefits.”