486 FBDËBAIi BKPOBTBB. �So far, theû, as the 375 shares are concerned it seerns clear that there is no liability on the defendant's part; but that he is properly chai-geable with the 125 shares, which were regu- larly purehased in the board, has hardly been seriously con- ti-adicted. It was suggested, however, that the order for 500 shares might and ought to be regarded as an entire contract, and that the defendant was not bound to take less than the whole 500 shares. A sufficient answer tô this position is that, upon receiving the defendant's order to buy 500 shares at a limit of three dollars, the undertaking of Prankel & Block, as brokers, was not to deliver the whole absolutely, but to buy 80 much as could be bought in the regular way below or at the limit. Moreover, there are no ciroumstances in this case showing, or tending to show, that the defendant regarded the purchase of the whole number.of shares as essential to the value of a part. An ordinary broker's contract for the buying of stock, each share of which has a distinct and inde- pendant value, cannot be regarded as entire. The resuit upon this stock transaction is that the defendant is entitled to a credit for 375 shares, at three dollars per share, for com- missions, and for interest thereon, at the rate of 2 per cent. �per month, from September 28, 1874, down to the day �of , 187-, and at 10 per cent, per ^nnum thereafter, �80 long as those rates have been charged against him in the account sued on. �The charges for telegrams were made in this way : Prankel & Block were in the habit of receiving orders daily for the purchase and sale of mining stocks. It often happened that a number of orders would be sent to San Francisco in one dispatch. In such case the practice was to charge each cus- tomer having an order therein 75 cents, (that being the proper charge for a single telegram of 10 words,) although such cus- tomer's proportion of the actual cost was of ten^ if not always, much less. Sometimes a single order would be sentJor one customer, and then the actual cost of the' telegram was charged. But how often this may bave been; done in defend^ ant's case nowhere appears. No effort waa made tokeep an account of the sums actually paid ont for telegrams about his ����
