Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/412

 386 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Oplnon of the Co't. 09 U. & the customer, and, as the trustee has no better right theto than the baakrupt, the customer is entitled to their possession; and this fight is not affected by the fact that the broker had hypothecated the shares. In such case the customer is entitled to the shares, or their procoeds, when returned to the trustee if the loan bus been paid by procoed o! other securitie pledged therefor. Proof of claim of a customer against a broker, includipg value of securities depazited as collateral, dec not amount to a waiver of his right to re- cover poesession of the specific stocks, if found, where his claim specifi- cally states that he does.not waive such right of poeseiom 149 Fed. Rep. 176, affirmed. Ta. facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Abram I. Elkuz, with whom Mr. Carlisle J. Gleason was on the brief, for petitioners. Mr. Graham Sumner and Mr. George E. Hall, with whom Mr. Thorna Thacher, Mr. Edlin M. Lwrence, and Mr. HWo $. Mack were on the briefs, for respondentsJ Ma. Jusc. DAY delivered the opinion of the court. This ce was argued and submitted with Henry a Trustee in Bankruptcy, v. John. M. Shaw and Alexander Davidson, No. 122, just decided, an p. 365. To the extent which the case involves the same general questions as to the legal relations of stockbrokers and customers, we need not repeat the discussion had in R/chardon v. haw, by which the conclusion was reached that under the usual contract for a speculative purchase of stock the customer is considered the pledgor and the broker the pledgee. In this case it is necessary to notice certain specific features not arising Jn the case just referred to. The petitioners, Edward S. Thomas, Lloyd M. Howell and Ashbel P. Fitch, are the trustees in bankruptcy of JaC�rry and Harold L. Ben-' neff, individually and as partners as Berry & Campany. Sev- eral persons, among others Ann D. Taggatt, Harris Filson, Vffilim C. Bowers and George E. Hall, made clakns to re- Argued'simultaneously with No. 122, R/chardon v. $hav, a,, p. 365.

�