376. OCTOBER TERM, 1?07. Opinion of the Court. 209 U. 8. tion was in spirit and effect, if not technically and in form, a contract of pledge." The case has been approved in other cases in New York, some of which are: $?ewar? v. ?ro?e, 46 N.Y. 449; $?m?o? v. Jerome, 54 N.Y. 480; Ba?er v. D?a?ce, 66 N.Y. 518? (?ur?a v. Sm?tA, 81 N.Y. 25; (?/? v. Wh?g, 120 N.Y. 402; v. Banner, 184 N.Y. 121; Dour/as v. Ca?er, 17 App. Div. 3'29. And approved in other States: Cashm? v. Roo?, 8? California, 373; Brewster v. Van L?w? 119 Illinois, 554; ?- F?a v. H0w?, 5 Pa. St. 41; W?n?oo? v. $?, ?4 Pa. St. 361; Easer v./?ader?a, 71 Pa. St. 76. The subject was fully considered in a case which leaves Connecticut, 198, in which the conclusions in Marl?am ?v. Jaudo? were adopted and approved. These views have been very generally accepted as settled law by the text writers on the subject. 1 Dos Passos on Stockbrokers (2d ed.), 179-200; Jones on Pledges, �6; Mechem on Agency, �6. Mr. Jones, in h?s work on pledges, summarizes the law as follows: "The broker acts in a threefold relation: first, in purchasing the stock he is an agent; then in advancing money f6r the pur- chase he becomes a creditor, and ?nally, in holding the stock to secure the advance made, he becomes a pledgee of does not matter that the actual possession of the stock was never in the customer. The form of the delivery of the stock to the customer, and a rcdelive?y by him to the broker, would have constituted a strict, formal pledge. But this delivery and redelivery would leave the par?ies in precisely t. he ?me situation they are in when, waiving th?s formality, the broker retains the certificates ss security for advances." In Dos Passos on Stockbrokers, at page 114, the author says: "Upon the whole, while it must be conceded that there are incongruous features in the relation, there seems to be no hardship in holding that a stockbroker is a pledgee; for although it is truc that he may advance all or the greater part of the
�
