Justice Murphy summarized the state experience and stated the test to be applied as follows: This [Gopher] definition was uniformly applied by state courts to a vari-See

In decisions in this state and in other jurisdictions where it has been contended that a transaction under attack did not come within the Corporate Securities Act because it constituted only a sale of specific real or personal property or an interest therein, the courts have looked through form to substance and found that in fact the transaction contemplated the conduct of a …

B. Cf., regulatory definitions, eg, Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 74 (1933) § 2, 15 USC $77 (b)(1958); and state Blue Sky Laws generally.

—the court found that contracts consisting of orders for a certain number of rabbits and hutches, authorizing vendors to sell any rabbit and to replace it, and for a division of profits between parties without providing for the separa-tion of any specific rabbit or hutch, were subject to the Corporate Securities Act as amended in Cal.

It is familiar rule, recognized by this and other courts, that where several papers, concerning same subject matter, are executed by or between same parties at same time, all are to be construed together as one instrument.

Even transactions in which rabbits were sold but the buyers contracted to leave the animals in the vendor's possession and under his management, in consideration of his right to share in the increase, have been held to be sales of "securities