Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/585

 erty in the shres, and,  one share of stock is not different in kind or quality from every other share of the same issue and company, the re- turn of a different certificate, or the right to sub'stiPule one certificate for another of the same number of shares, is not a material change in the property right held by the broker for his customer. lb. 4. ,Stockbroker ns pledgee o! stock carried m& marcin. Richardwn v. 3hazy, ante, p. 3, f611owed to tile effect that, ms a general rule the broker is the pledgco and the customer tile owner 'and plotigor of stocks carried on margin. Thonuts v. Tayart, 385. 5. Comn'ions o[ real sstatz brokers. A broker employed to cell land subject to a requirement of the purchaser which the vendor declares will be complied with is entificd to his corn- minions if the sale falls through solely because the vendor's representa- tions are inaccurate. Doton v. Milliken, 237. 6. ,..qm. The fact tat, the particular pertion of a tract. of land for which  broker finds  purchaser in accordance with the vendor'* offer cannot, be identified does not, defeat the broker's claim for commissions if the sale fllz through entirely for other reasons for which t,he vendor was exclu- sively responsible. lb. ss Blt.-N.uPrc�, 1, 2, 4, 5. BURDEN OF PROOF. See Cmsa, Law, 1. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. ,See CRIMINAL LAW, 4. CANCELLATION OF DEEDS. ,See Dzvs. CARRIERS. CoNTITUTIOIM, Law, 3; INTEItSTATE COMMERCE. CASES APPItOVED. Mark. ha v. Jaudon, 41 N.Y. 235, approved in Richar&on v. ,Shaw, 365. CASES DISTINGUISHED. Lottery Case, 188 U.S. 321, distinguished ia Ware & Leland v. Mobile County, 405. Raick v. Pennstjlvania, 203 U.S. 507, distinguished in lb. CASES EXPLAINED. Ez par/z W/zner, 203 U.S. 449, explaincd in In re Mmre,

�