On June 15, 1863, she drew out $150 of the money and on the 18th of May 1864, she drew out $130.15 the balance of principal and interest then due, signed a receipt in the book in her own name, without the addition of trustee, and then delivered up the book to the bank. The book up to that time had always been retained in her own possession. In her will she disposed of all her estate making no mention of William A. Minor, or of the deposit.

A few days after the deposit, she informed the father of William that she had deposited $250 in the savings bank for Willie and on two other occasions during the same summer she alluded to the fact in conversation with Willie's parents, and that he would need it for his education.

William A. Minor knew nothing of the deposit until after the death of Mary Daniels which occurred in 1868, and no further allusion was made to it between her and his parents during her life. It did not appear for what purpose she drew the money out or what she did with it.

This suit was brought by William A. Minor against the executor of Mary Daniels to recover the money with interest.

The executor claimed that upon the facts there was no effective gift; that in law Mrs. Daniels had, notwithstanding the deposit, the right to revoke her intended bounty, and that by withdrawing the deposit in her own name, she must be deemed to have revoked it so that it never became effective.

Held: Mrs. Daniels deposited $250 for the sole benefit of the plaintiff intending thereby to vest in plaintiff all the beneficial interest in the deposit. Within a few days after, she informed plaintiff's father of what she had done for the plaintiff, and remarked that he would need the donation to acquire an education. But she made the deposit in her own name as trustee for the plaintiff and kept the bank book in her possession, and this gives rise

to all the doubt there is in the case, namely, whether the gift was consummated or not.

It is evident that she did all that she thought was necessary to be done to perfect the gift and supposed that she had accomplished the object; and the only question is whether she was successful. If she had made the deposit in the name of the plaintiff alone, or had made some other person than herself trustee for the plaintiff, no question could have arisen regarding the completeness of the gift. But the beneficial interest is as much given as it would have been if either of these modes had been adopted. The deposit is made in bank for the plaintiff and the bank is informed of the fact. Here is a delivery of the beneficial interest. No more would have been done if the deposit had been made in the name of a third party for the plaintiff. The trustee in that case would have had nothing more than the bare, naked, legal title, without any beneficial interest whatsoever. That interest would have vested directly in the plaintiff. Can it be said that Mrs. Daniels retained in her possession anything more anything but the naked, legal title, when all the beneficial interest had been as completely given and delivered to the plaintiff as it could have been if a third party had been made trustee? Suppose she had given the plaintiff a writing to this effect: "I, Mary Daniels, have this day deposited in the New Haven Savings Bank $250, in my name as trustee for William A. Minor," would the case be stronger than it is now? She substantially so declared to the bank when she made the deposit, expecting they would make a record of it for the benefit of plaintiff, which they did make. She substantially so declared to the father and natural guardian of the plaintiff, a short time after, expecting, no doubt, that he would inform the plaintiff of what she had done for him.

It is true that a mere naked promise to give personal

property, or a declaration by a party without performing some act delivering or conveying the property to the donee, would not be sufficient. But here the donor took a sum of money and deposited it in a bank where she had no funds of her own, for the purpose of transferring all of the beneficial interest in the same to the plaintiff, and although she used her own name as trustee for the plaintiff, still the act had the same effect as depositing it in the plaintiff's name, in every respect except the legal title. Surely here are acts done for the purpose of transferring the beneficial interest in the chose in action to the plaintiff.

If the deposit had been made in the name of the donor alone, then it would have been necessary in order to perfect the gift, for her to have given the plaintiff a writing conveying the gift, or an assignment of the bank book in which the deposit was entered.

But here the conveyance was made of the chose in action at the time the deposit was made, and it so appears on the books of the bank, and in the donor's bank book, which entries she caused to be made at the time of the transaction

But the defendant relies very much upon the fact that Mrs. Daniels retained possession of the bank book. He considers this act of hers as wholly inconsistent with a perfected gift. But she could not act as trustee of the chose in action without retaining possession of the book, for it is well known that savings banks require the presentation of such books whenever any action on their part is asked for with regard to the deposits in the banks. She retained possession, therefore, because the deposit was made in her name as trustee, and not because she had not given the beneficial interest of the deposit to the plaintiff.

We think, therefore, that the gift of Mrs. Daniels to the plaintiff was complete when the money was deposited

in bank and that consequently she could not thereafter annul the transaction as she attempted to do.

The defendant further claims that her trust was void for uncertainty, because no time was specified when the plaintiff should enjoy the legal as well as the equitable right to the property. The donor stated that the plaintiff would need the donation for his education, thereby implying that it should be in his hands for that purpose when that time should arrive. At all events it cannot be considered that she intended the trusteeship to continue longer than during the minority of the plaintiff. We see no difficulty in this objection.

B: C. GUARDIAN.

Kerrigan v. Rautigan, (1875), 43 Conn. 17.

A deposited a sum of money in the name of “B, C guardian,” informing C that she had put the money in bank for B. A, however, kept the book and afterwards caused the money to be transferred back to her own name. Later she transferred the deposit to an account "B, A trustee." A always kept the bank book, until a few days before her death when she handed it to C, telling her that it was B's money; but at A's request, the bank book was again returned to her, and she had the account transferred to her own name; and then retransferred to "D, trustee," with directions to the latter to pay her debts, funeral expenses, and purchase a gravestone. A died, leaving no estate except the deposit. Thereafter "D, trustee " drew out the money, and paid most of it out for A's funeral expenses and debts.

Afterwards, B claiming that the deposit was given her, brought suit against D therefor.

Held: At the time of the first deposit, A intended to make a valid gift thereof to B, and the making of the deposit in the name of "B, C guardian," taking the book in the name of the donee, and notifying the guardian of the act, gave effect to that intention, made the gift complete, and placed

it beyond the power of A to revoke it. Hence the deposit belonged to B, and D trustee who withdrew the same and paid it away as directed by A, is liable for the amount to B, after deducting the sum of one debt which he paid, which existed before the gift to B, and with the payment of which the deposit in B's hands would be rightfully chargeable.

On August 30, 1869, Elizabeth Williams, a sister of Margaret Kerrigan, and Aunt of Elizabeth Kerrigan, a minor, deposited in the Chelsea Savings Bank of Norwich, $460, in the name and to the credit of

"Elizabeth Kerrigan-Margaret Kerrigan, guardian," and received the usual pass book. At the time she told Margaret that she had put the money in the bank for Elizabeth Kerrigan, but did not deliver the book either to Margaret or to Elizabeth Kerrigan.

On October 29, 1869, Elizabeth Williams drew from the bank $10 of the money so deposited and caused the remainder to be transferred back to her by Margaret Kerrigan and took out a book for the same in her own

name.

On September 20, 1870 she deposited $37.75 in this account. From August 30, 1869 to November 2, 1870 interest on the deposits to the amount of $26.25 accrued; but between those dates Elizabeth Williams drew out $114 leaving a balance to her credit on November 2, 1870 of $400 which was on that day, by her direction, placed to the credit of

"Elizabeth Kerrigan-Elizabeth Williams, trustee." From November 2, 1870 to March 19, 1872 the account was not changed except by the credit of $35.78 earnings and $23.78 withdrawn by Elizabeth Williams. Elizabeth Williams never delivered to Margaret Kerrigan nor to Elizabeth Kerrigan the bank book taken out on August 30, 1869 and always held the book taken out November 2, 1870 until a few days before she died. She then placed it in the hands of Margaret, telling her to