erty in the sh?res, and, ? one share of stock is not different in kind or quality from every other share of the same issue and company, the re- turn of a different certificate, or the right to sub'stiPule one certificate for another of the same number of shares, is not a material change in the property right held by the broker for his customer. lb. 4. ,Stockbroker ns pledgee o! stock carried m& marcin. Richardwn v. 3hazy, ante, p. 3?, f611owed to tile effect that, ms a general rule the broker is the pledgco and the customer tile owner 'and plotigor of stocks carried on margin. Thonuts v. Tay?art, 385. 5. Com?n'?ions o[ real sstatz brokers. A broker employed to cell land subject to a requirement of the purchaser which the vendor declares will be complied with is entificd to his corn- minions if the sale falls through solely because the vendor's representa- tions are inaccurate. Dot?on v. Milliken, 237. 6. ,..q?m?. The fact t?at, the particular pertion of a tract. of land for which ? broker finds ? purchaser in accordance with the vendor'* offer cannot, be identified does not, defeat the broker's claim for commissions if the sale f?llz through entirely for other reasons for which t,he vendor was exclu- sively responsible. lb. ?ss Blt.-N?.uPrc�, 1, 2, 4, 5. BURDEN OF PROOF. See Cm?sa?, Law, 1. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. ,See CRIMINAL LAW, 4. CANCELLATION OF DEEDS. ,See D?zvs. CARRIERS. CoN?TITUTIOI?M, Law, 3; INTEItSTATE COMMERCE. CASES APPItOVED. Mark. ha? v. Jaudon, 41 N.Y. 235, approved in Richar&on v. ,Shaw, 365. CASES DISTINGUISHED. Lottery Case, 188 U.S. 321, distinguished ia Ware & Leland v. Mobile County, 405. R?a?ick v. Pennstjlvania, 203 U.S. 507, distinguished in lb. CASES EXPLAINED. Ez par/z W/zner, 203 U.S. 449, explaincd in In re Mm?re,
�
