some event, or being liable to be wholly defeated if a certain event occurs, is any the less a valid gift. The only condition of defeasance in the present case was a possible election of the donor to collect some part or the whole of the money delivered. The time for exercising this election expires with the life of the donor, and the gift thereby was freed from all condition of defeasance, and the right of the donee to immediate possession of the $300 and interest became absolute. Judgment for plaintiff. B; PAYABLE TO A. Pope v. Burlington Sav. Bank and Marion Cushing, Claimant, (1884), 56 Vt. 584. A deposited money in a savings bank in the name of B, but with the entry added payable to A." A always retained the deposit book and controlled the deposit, at one time pledging same as security for a loan, and afterwards withdrawing part of the deposit. B had no knowledge of the deposit. After A's death, Held: There was not a valid gift to B, there being no delivery and A always retaining control of the deposit. Nor could the transaction be sustained as a trust, the bank being trustee for B, nor did A hold the deposit as trustee for B. On January 15, 1880, Sidney Barlow deposited in the Burlington Savings Bank $800 of his own money and took therefor deposit book No. 10,973, which he always kept and controlled. By the custom of the bank, to prevent frauds in the case of loss of deposit books, no name of a depositor appeared on their deposit books, but merely a number. On a register kept in the bank these numbers were inscribed and against each number were separate columns for the names, residence, occupation, age and date of birth of the depositor, together with such remarks or condition as to the deposit as were directed to be entered. In this particular case the entries on this register were as follows: signature, "Marion Cushing;' remarks, "payable to S. Barlow." The column headed "signature," did not contain the signature of any person but merely a name written by the officers of the bank, which was that of the person in whose name the deposit was directed to be made. The pass book was so issued and this entry so made in accordance with the express direction of Mr. Barlow. Barlow made or executed no writing in respect to this deposit at any time or on said book, or the books of the bank; nor did he make any entry anywhere in respect to this deposit, except that some time before his death he wrote the initials "M. C." in pencil upon the cover of the deposit book. In March and June following the making of the deposit, Barlow borrowed sums of money from the bank giving his individual notes therefor and pledging this pass book as security; and when the notes became due he withdrew from this deposit to apply in payment of the notes a sum which left the balance of the deposit less than $400. On August 20, 1880, Mr. Barlow, being in ordinary health, verbally directed the treasurer to add to the entry "payable to S. Barlow," so as to make it read “payable to S. Barlow during his life, and after his death to Marion Cushing," which was done. Nothing else was ever said or written by Barlow to any one in respect to this deposit or his intention in regard to it. The by-law printed on the pass book provided that no deposit can be withdrawn without the production of this book. The treasurer understood this deposit was under Barlow's control and regarded him as the depositor and that it was his money; and the bank had no communication with Miss Cushing or any one else in respect to it. Nothing else occurred in regard to it previous to his death. He left a will, made before this deposit, in which was this provision: "I hereby confirm all gifts I have made or shall make to any of my children." Marion Cushing was a grandchild living in California. In an action brought against the bank by the executor of Barlow, in which Marion Cushing was cited as claimant, Held: 1. The deposit by Barlow in the name of Marion Cushing cannot be sustained as a gift inter vivos. It was his money, and, although deposited in her name, it was made payable solely to himself during his life, he retaining the pass book and having absolute control of the deposit, and she being neither a party to, nor having any knowledge of the transaction. Whether the transaction would have constituted a perfected gift inter vivos, if Barlow had delivered the deposit book to the claimant, or to some other person in trust, is not the question in the case at bar. Here there was no delivery whatever. If the deposit had been made in such a way and with such an understanding with the bank as to place it beyond recall or control of Barlow, then the transaction might, under the authority of Howard v. Savings Bank, 40 Vt. 597, be upheld as a completed gift notwithstanding Barlow kept the deposit book, but the facts of this case do not bring it within the theory upon which that case was decided. 2. Nor can this transaction be sustained as a trust, the bank being a trustee. The primary relation of a depositor in a savings bank to the corporation is that of creditor and not that of a beneficiary of a trust and the deposit when made becomes the property of the corporation. The statute (S. 3575 R. L.) provides an easy method of making a deposit a trust for another, which was in force when the deposit in question was made. If a deposit in the depositor's name does not create a trust relation no more would that relation be created by depositing in another person's name, or making it payable to another's order. The claimant, therefore, cannot stand on the ground that the bank became a trustee when the deposit was made without any declaration of trust. 3. Nor did the transaction create a trust between the claimant and Barlow, so that he held the pass book as trustee for her. What Barlow did, did not constitute a declaration of trust. The money deposited was his. The pass book was the evidence of the deposit and took the place of the money in his hands. No species of property can be more easily transferred or delivered. Nothing was said indicating an intention to hold the book in trust other than the direction to make said entry on the bank register. This was insufficient. A IN TRUST FOR B. Connecticut River Savings Bank v. Albee, (1892), 64 Vt. 571, 25 Atl. Rep. 487. The fact that the depositor has placed the maximum amount not subject to tax in his own name in a bank is not inconsistent with the creation of a trust in the same bank. Samuel Albee, having over $3,000 on deposit in the Connecticut River Savings Bank, was informed by the treasurer of the bank that all sums in excess of $2,000 were taxable against him and that he might escape the tax by transferring a portion of the deposit to the name of some other person. Later the depositor went to the bank, drew $1,600 and deposited it in the name of "Charles P. Albee, of Rockingham, Vt., in account with Conn. River Savings Bank." Inside the pass book was this entry: "Conn. River Savings Bank in account with Charles P. Albee, (Samuel Albee, Trustee) December 12, 1878. Deposit, $1.600." Charles P. Albee was the son of the depositor. The depositor retained the book until his death. It was held that there was a valid trust in favor of Charles. The fact that the depositor had stated that he had made the transfer to avoid taxation was held not to negate the idea that he intended also to create |