Matter of Totten, 179 N. Y. 112, the trust became irrevocable. Upon the death of the mother the daughter was entitled to the deposit. The fact that several years after the opening of the trust account, and on the day before her death, the mother made a change in her will indicating a different intent as to the disposition of the account could not affect the transaction which had already taken place.

A IN TRUST FOR B.

Scott v. Harbeck, (1888), 49 Hun, 292, 1 N. Y. Supp. 788.

A deposit by one person in trust for another creates an irrevocable trust, though the beneficiary is not notified of the deposit until the death of the depositor, and the depositor has drawn the deposit and used it in the meantime.

The depositor, Elvira Parker, in 1860, opened a savings bank account in her name in trust for Mary Barker, who subsequently became Mary Scott. Fourteen years later she drew out the money and used it for her own benefit. Mary Scott did not learn of the deposit until after the death of Elvira Parker, when she brought suit against the latter's executors. It was held that she was entitled to recover. The deposit created a trust and it was conversion for the trustee to devote the money to her own

use.

A IN TRUST FOR B.

Jenkins v. Baker, (1902), 77 N. Y. App. Div. 509, 78 N. Y. Supp. 1074.

A deposit by A in trust for B, though B does not know of the deposit, and it is subsequently drawn out, creates a trust in favor of B.

The plaintiff and defendant in this case were father and daughter, respectively. The wife of the plaintiff opened an account in her own name in a savings bank, in trust

for the plaintiff and deposited in the account sums which, with interest, aggregated $1,397.56. The account was opened in October, 1899. In May, 1900, the depositor drew out all of the account and gave $650 of it to her daughter, the defendant. The depositor died in July, 1900, and this suit was commenced afterwards. She never made the account known to her husband, or made any declaration in respect to it. It was held that a trust in favor of the husband was shown.

A IN TRUST FOR B.

Williams v. Brooklyn Savings Bank, (1900), 51 N. Y. App. Div. 332, 64 N. Y. Supp. 1021.

A deposit by A in trust for B establishes a prima facie intent to create a trust, which is not rebutted by a failure to notify the beneficiary of the deposit, or a withdrawal of part of the deposit. Circumstances showing that deposit was made to evade interest limit of bank considered.

A deposit of $2,700 was made in 1894 in a savings bank in these terms, "William Williams, in trust for Owen Williams." The depositor died in 1896 leaving the account open and unexplained. Within a year after the deposit was made he drew out $105. He never notified the beneficiary, who was a brother living in England, of the deposit, and he retained the pass book until his death. The depositor had other accounts in the same bank.

It was held that the intent of the depositor governs the question of whether or not a trust is created. The deposit, in the form in which it was made, raised a presumption that a trust was intended. This might, or might not, be conclusive, for it is but evidence of intent to create a trust; and divers motives might have dictated the making of the deposit. It appeared that the depositor had strong feelings of affection for the beneficiary, who was an invalid and earned very little on which to support his

family. This it was held was a matter to be considered in determining the depositor's intent. The retention of the pass book did not rebut the presumption of the creation of a trust. The depositor must be deemed to have retained the book as trustee, and, being a trustee he was a proper custodian. As to the failure to notify the beneficiary of the deposit the Court, through Jenks, J., said: "Knowledge of the beneficiary was not essential. Moreover, there was no personal association of the brothers, for this plaintiff lived across the sea." It was argued that, as the depositor had other sums on deposit in the same bank, his object in opening a trust account was to evade the interest limit of the bank which was $3,000. But, in regard to this contention, the Court said: "The argument at best is speculation upon a possible motive." Attention was called to the fact that there were other banks open to the depositor. The Court further said: "The argument based upon a scheme for interest does not carry special force in any given case; for it is available in every case where the depositor's own funds in the same bank have reached the limit."

A IN TRUST FOR B.

Robertson v. McCarty (1900), 54 N. Y. App. Div. 103, 66 N. Y. Supp. 327.

A deposit by A of his money in trust for B creates an irrevocable trust, though A retains the pass book and B does not become aware of the deposit until after A's death. The trust was valid even as to a portion withdrawn by the depositor in his lifetime.

In July, 1898, an account was opened in the Bowery Savings Bank, for the sum of $3,000 in the name of "Stout Robertson in trust for Cornelius S., brother." The money belonged to Stout, who retained the pass-book until his death in February, 1899. Cornelius had no knowledge of the existence of the account until after

Stout's death. Before Stout died he had drawn out and used $2,000 of the deposit. The administrator did not dispute Cornelius' right to the remaining $1,000. This action was brought against the administrator to recover the $2,000 used by Stout. It was held that Cornelius was entitled to the money. A deposit in the form of a trust, unqualified and unexplained, creates a trust, which cannot be revoked in the absence of the reservation of a power of revocation.

A IN TRUST FOR B.

Matter of Biggars (1902), 39 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 426, 80 N. Y. Supp. 214.

A deposit by A in trust for B is a valid trust though A keeps the pass book and does not inform B of the trust. B cannot claim amounts withdrawn by A.

The deposit in this case was by a mother in trust for her daughter. The account was opened in 1882 and, up to 1901, the mother had made forty-five deposits, aggregating about $5,000. During the same time she made withdrawals so that at the time of her death in February, 1901, the balance was $2,286.34. The withdrawals approximated $2,800.00, and some of this was used for the benefit of the daughter. The mother referred to the trust account frequently but her intent seemed to be that the deposit would be the daughter's after her (the mother's) death. Nevertheless it was held that there was a valid trust in favor of the daughter. There was a good trust notwithstanding the fact that the mother had retained the pass book.

There was no trust, however, as to the amounts withdrawn by the depositor. "She was under no obligation to the beneficiary to maintain the fund at the highest point it might reach. The cases where such relief has been allowed presented situations vastly different from the one in the case at bar." In this case it

* * *

appeared that the beneficiary had had the benefit of some of the money withdrawn.

A IN TRUST FOR B, A FOR B.

Weaver v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, N. Y., (1885), 17 Abb. N. C. 82.

A deposited money and received books made out "A for B" and "A 'A in trust for B." It was held that B was entitled to the deposits as against A's administrator, though A had retained the pass-books until his death and though B knew nothing of the deposits until after the death.

The plaintiff Cynthia S. Weaver was the daughter of Isaac S. Weaver. The latter opened accounts in four different banks. One pass-book was made out "Isaac S. Allen, for his daughter, Cynthia S. Weaver." The other three were made out in the name of Isaac S. Allen, "in trust for Cynthia S. Weaver." Isaac Allen retained the pass-books until his death. The plaintiff did not learn of the deposits until after the death of Isaac Allen, when the pass-books came to the possession of the executor. The executor refused to deliver the pass-books and these actions were brought. The banks interpleaded and the four actions were tried together. It was held that the depositor created a trust in favor of the plaintiff and that his retention of the pass-books was not inconsistent with the trust.

A IN TRUST FOR B.

Haynes v. McKee, (1896), 18 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 361, 41 N. Y. Supp. 553.

Where one deposits money in his own name, in trust for another a valid trust is created although he retains the pass book until his death.

A IN TRUST FOR B.

Cuff v. Cuff, (1907), 120 N. Y. App. Div. 225, 105 N. Y. Supp. 332.