Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/405

 RICHARDSON . SHAW. sents precisely the same kind and value of property as does another certificate for a llke number of shares of stock in the same corporation. It is a misconception of the nature of the certificate to say that a return of a different certificate or the fight to substitute one certificate for another is a material hange in the property right held by the broker for the cus- tertier. Hort v. Morgan, 19 N.Y. 170; Tasi v. Hart, 58 N.Y. 425; ql-/# v. $toddard, 63 Connecticut, 198, 218. As was said by the Court of Appeals. of New York in Ca2/v. Putnam, 120 N.Y. 153, 157, "one share of stock is not dif- ferent in kind or value from every other share of the same issue and company. They are unlike distinct articles of personal property which differ in kind and value, such as a horse, wagon or harness. The stock has no earmark which distinguishes one share from another, so as to give it any additional value or importance; like grain oI-a uniform quality, one bushel is of the same kind and value as another." Nor is the right to repledge inconsistent with ownership of the stock in the customer. qk{# v. $toddard, 63 Connecticut, 216, 219; Ogden v. Lathtop, 65 N.Y. 158. It was obtained in the present case by a contract secifically made and did not affect the right of the customer, upon settlement of the ac- counts, to require of the broker the redemption of the shares and their return in kind. It is true that the right to sell, for the broker's protection, which was not exercised in this case, presents more difficulty, and is one of the incongruities in the recognition of ownership in the customer; nevertheless it does not change the essential relations of the parties, and certainly does not convert the broker into what he never intended to be and for which he assumes no risk, and takes no responsibility in the purchase and carrying of shares of stock. The broker cannot be converted into an owner without a perversion of the understanding of the parties, as was perti- nently observed in the very able discussion already referred to in q// v. toddard, 63 Connecticut, 216. "So long as the

�