209 U.S. Argument for Reepondeat? tion of pledgor and pledgee therefore arises, with this qualifto cation to the usual rule applicable to such relation, that it is not necessary for the broker to retain in his possession the identical stock purchased by him on his customer's order, but it is sufficient if he has in his possession, or under his control, a quantity .of the stock in question equal to that purchased, which he can deliver to the customer when the account is closed.. Markham v. Yaudon, 41 N.Y. 235; Skiff v. Stoddard, 63 Co?i- necticut, 198; S.C., 21 L. R. A. 102, 113. This is the uniform rule in New York. Stewart v. Dr ake, 4? N.Y. 449; Stenton v. Jerome, 54 N.Y. 480; Baker v. Drake, 53 N.Y. 211; S.C., 66 N.Y. 518; Taussig v. Hart, 58 N.Y. N.Y. 418; Caswe//v. Putnam, 120 N.Y. 154; G///et v. Whiting, N.Y. 399; LeMarchant v. Moore, 150 N.Y. 209; Rothskhild v. A//en, 90 App. Div. 233, &ff'd 180 N.Y. 561; Hurd v. Taylor, 181 N.Y. 231; Tompk9? v. Morton Trust Co., 91 App. Div. 279, aff'd 181 N.Y. 578; Content v. Banner, 184 N.Y. 121; Kennedy v. Budd, 5 App. Div. 140; Douglass v. Carpenter, 17 App. Div. 329; $trickland v. Magoun, 119 App. Div. 113; Andrews v. C/?rke, 3 Bosw. 585; Taylor v. Ketcham, 5 Rob. 507; Chamberlain v. Greenlea[, 4 Abb. N. C. 478; Willard v. White, 56 H?m, 581. The same rule has been adopted in other States. Child v. Hugg, 41 California, 519; Thompson v. Toland, 48 California, 99; Cashman v. Root, 89 California, 373; Sk/ff v. Stoddard, 63 Connecticut, 198; G//p/n v. Howe//, 5 Pa. St. 41; Wynkoop v. Sea/, 64 Pa. St. 361; Esser v. Linderman, 71 Pa. St. 76; Hopkins v. O'Kans, 169 Pa. St. 478; Maryland Li?e Ins. Co. v. Dalrymple, 25 M&rylahd, 242; Baltimore Ins. Co. v. Dak rymp/e, 25 Maryland, 269; Brewster v. Van Liew, 119 Illinois, 554. It has been likewise impliedly recognized in Ga//gher v. Jones, 129 U.S. 193; Crawlord v. Burke, 195 U.S. 176, 194; Re Bolling, 147 Fcd. Rep. 786. Also .by the ?ext-writers.
�
