Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/409

 RICHARDSON v. SHAW. 209 U. 8. Opinion of the Court. setts, there is nothing in the case decisive of the question now before us. The case most relied upon as showing the preference is Wes- ton v. Jordan, 168 Massachusetts, supra. It was held in that case that Wheatland, the broker (Weston was his assignee. in insolvency), had become a debtor to the customer Jordan, having parted with the control of the shares and substituting none others for them after repeated demands for them by the customer. And it was held that when the insolvent broker went into the street and bought that kind of stocks with h own money and the customer took the stocks knowing of such purchase, the transaction amounted to a preference; and in course of the discussion Mr. Justice Allen, referring to the contentSion of counsel that the Massachusetts rule should be reconsidered in view of the rules adopted in New York and other States, said (p. 404): "The defendant seeks to have these dceislous reconsidered; but the facts of the present case do not call for such reconsid- eration of the general doctrine. Even if at the outer Jordan were to be deemed a pledgor, and Wheatland a pledgee, of the shares, that relation was changed by what happened after- wards. Atcr Wheatland had parted with the con- trol of the shares, and'afi. repeated demands ]or thn by Jor- dan, and refusals by Wheatland to deliver them, Jordan had a valid ground o/ action aainst Wheatland, either /or breach o! contract or or a conversion; it matters not which." The facts in the present case are entirely different from those disclosed in the case just cited. In the present case there was no demand for the return of the stocks which was refused by the broker; but, recognizing the obligation of the contract, when the stocks were demanded the broker proceeded to re- deem them from th pledge which he had made of them under the fight given by the contract between the parties, and turned them over to the customer. In such case the relation of debtor and creditor did not arise as it might upon the refusal, as in Wton v. Jordan, to turn over the stocks upon demand.

�