See also Weisberg v. Hunt, 239 Mass. 190, and Walters v. Albee, 245 Mass. 216. In Matthys v. Hornblower, 224 Mass. 248, both proof of deliveries in connection with the immediate transaction and of ability at all times to meet the simultaneous demands of all customers for the stock were present; but there was no intimation that the latter was necessary where the former appeared. The case is covered in principle by Barrell v. Paine, 236 Mass. 157, and Harris v. Friedman, supra.

The judge was right in allowing the motion that a finding be ordered for the defendants. The finding that the plaintiff had an intention that there should be actual purchases and sales of securities was not substantially contradicted or affected by evidence outside the report, nor by inconsistent and material findings within the report. Matthys v. Hornblower, 224 Mass. 248. Barrell v. Paine, 236 Mass. 157, 163, 164. If it be a fact that the plaintiff intended there should be actual sales and purchases of the securities, it necessarily follows that the belief of the defendants as to the plaintiff's intention was immaterial, and the rulings requested in that regard were properly refused.

The defendants' requests in so far as not given were denied rightly. Matthys v. Hornblower, 224 Mass. 248, 252. Adams v. Dick, 226 Mass. 46. Zembler v. Fitzgerald, 234 Mass. 236, and kindred cases are very plainly distinguishable. The plaintiffs however contend that the finding in their favor should have been for $1,735.45, the amount found by the auditor, instead of $903.26 as found by the judge.

Upon this branch of the case the auditor's report was not contradicted nor affected by evidence outside the report. This finding is at least as favorable to the defendants in this particular as those revealed in Matthys v. Hornblower, 224 Mass. 248. The auditor's other findings of facts did not shake the force of this one already quoted.