benefit of creditor); Meisinger v. Johnson, 162 Neb. 360, 76 N.W.2d 267 (1956) (loan to be repaid out of first profits from land held to create mere contract relation, not a trust). Similarly, even where parties to a contract expressly characterize the contrac tual relationship as a trust, courts will look to the substance of the relationship rather than to the language chosen to express it, to determine whether a fiduciary relationship exists. Thus, Justice Cardozo observed, “It is not enough that by the very act of wrongdoing out of which the debt arose, the bankrupt has become chargeable as a trustee ex maleficio. He must have been a trustee before the wrong and without reference thereto.” David v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, at 333, 55 S.Ct. 151, at 153, 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934) (<HOLDING>). See also Bloomingdale v. Dreher, 31 F.2d 93
holding the assignment of the mortgage once the original grant by the mortgagor to the mortgagee has been perfected does not involve a transfer of the property of the debtor  holding that it is evident that no harm is suffered when the mortgagor would have been in no better position had notice been fully proper and   the mortgagor lost no potential opportunity to preserve some or any portion of his interest in the property holding that a mortgagor in possession is not a fiduciary of the mortgagee within the meaning of the bankruptcy act even though the mortgagor has obligated himself to keep the security intact holding that an insurers defenses against the mortgagor could not be asserted against the mortgagee holding that a mortgagor is not required to prove a grossly inadequate selling price in a situation where the bidding at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale was deliberately chilled by the affirmative acts of a mortgagee and the injured mortgagor seeks a recovery of damages rather than a setting aside of the sale itself emphasis omitted