Charles Evans Hughes

“ 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. ”

“ We think that the facts afford no adequate basis for the conclusion that a trust existed. The underlying relation 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. ”

“ See 3 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, § 1044 et seq. But the mere failure to pay a debt does 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. ”