# Local 140 Security Fund Claimant-Appellant v. William S. Hack, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Sleep Products, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · March 4, 1957 · 242 F.2d 375

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9445524

## Case

- **Full name:** LOCAL 140 SECURITY FUND Claimant-Appellant, v. William S. HACK, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Sleep Products, Inc., Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** March 4, 1957
- **Citations:** 242 F.2d 375; 39 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2546; 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4480
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hincks
- **Judges:** Medina, Hincks, Leibell
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9445524

## Opinion text

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 *379 to 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.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9445524. Public record. Not legal advice.