390 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Opinion of the Court. ?0? U.S. of the property. Loveland on Bankruptcy (3d ed.), �2; Hewit v. Berlin Machine Works, 194 U.' S. 296; York Manu- facturing Co. v. Casaell, 201 U. S. 344. We will next consider the claim of Harris Filson. Fitson claims a lien on the fund as the owner of two certifi- catcs for tcn shares each of preferred stock. of the Atchison? Topeka and Santa F? Railroad Company. Filson identified the certificates. by their numbers and pro- duced Berry & Company's receipts therefor. The b?nkrupts, Berry & Company, had hypothecated them with the Hanover Bank, which sold them for $2,072.50, which the claimant seeks �to recoYer. The master finds that Filson had a speculative account with Berry & Company, and "?as trading on both sides of the market." On the morning ef November 25, his account showed that he had bought on margin, 70 shares of stock, including 40 shares of Pennsylvania Railroad, and that he had sold "short" 50 shares of stock, including 20 shares of "Atchison preferred," 'and 10 shares of "Erie, first preferred." The ac- count also showed a cash credit of $3,105.97. The claimant tcstifie?l that he called at the office of Berry & Company on shares of Penn.?ylvania, which he had previously bought on margin on November 17. He took with him one of the tcn share certificates of Atchison, Topeka and Santa F?, and asked the cashier to figure up the account and let him know if the deposit of the Atchison certificatc would leave sufficient mar- gin to withdraw the Pennsylvania stock. He was told that it was not sufficient, as the withdrawal of the Pennsylvania stock would leave a credit balance of only $300 or $400. Filson then went to his safe deposit box and took out two additional certificates for 10 shams of Atchison and 10 shares of Erie, and delivered them, together with other certificates, to Berry & Company on their usual receipt, which was, in form? the same as the receipt given to Mrs. Taggart, above quoted. The next day Berry & Company failed, lqtson never re-
�