209 U. 8. Syihbu? ! am wrong. I suppose that it is possible to say that after a purchase of stock is announced to a customer he becomes an equitable tenant in common of all the stock of that kind in the broker's hands, that the broker's powers of disposition, extensive as they are, are subject to the duty to keep stock enough on hand to satisfy his customers' claims, and that the nature of the stock identifies the fund as fully as a grain ele- vator identifies the grain for which receipts are out. It would seem to follow that the customer would have a right to de- mand his stock of the trustee himself, as well as to receive it from the bankrupt, on paying whatever remained to be paid. A just deference to the views of my brethren prevents my dissenting from the conclusion reached, although I cannot but feel a lingering doubt. THOMAS v. TAGGART. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 1?. A? Jan?'y 17, 20, l?O?--D?eid?d April ?, I?. Richard.?o? v. Shaw, aS, p. 36?, followed to the effect that as a general rule the broker is the piedsee and the customer the owner and pled?or of carried on mer?u. Where there is a repugnancy between the printed and written provisions of a contract, the writing is presumed to express the specific intention o! the parties and will prevail. In this case the written portion on the receipt s/yen for stocks, deposited with the broker as collateral on account, was held as specially applicable thereto and that the broker's r/ght to re. hypothecate stocks under the printed portion of the contract confined to the stocks pumh?ed and carried on margin. If t, itIe to property is good as a?ainst the bankrupt or his creditore at the t/me the ?a title aceruas, title does not pa?, and the owner of the . property is entitled to have it rastored to him, or? if it has been cold, the proeeed? thereof. Sl?ares o! stock held by a broker s? collateral for the aceount of a customer, upon which th? latter is not indebted to th? broker? are the prope?j- o!
�
