In the opinion it was pointed out that Mrs. Goodrich "intended that the deposit should be made in such a way that the daughters would take no interest until their mother's death. That this was the purpose of the transfer was understood by all the parties including the bank officers, and it does not appear that the daughters themselves supposed that it was made for a different purpose. If it had been the intention of Mrs. Goodrich in making these deposits that a joint interest with herself in the money should immediately vest in her daughters, the gift would not have failed because she retained possession of the bank books. Her possession as a joint owner would have been regarded as the possession of the other joint owners. But as the entries and transfer in question were made only for the accomplishment of the purpose expressed by the decedent to her agent, Smith, and by him to the officers of the bank, and as it was the intention of all the parties that that was to be the only effect of the transfer as made, there was no effective gift to the daughters. It was an attempted testamentary disposition of the money, and was void because not made in legal form."

IOWA.

A IN TRUST FOR B.

In re Podhajsky's Estate, (Iowa, 1908), 115 N. W. Rep. 590.

Where one makes a deposit in a savings bank in his own name in trust for a designated beneficiary, declaring at the time that he wishes the deposit to vest in the donee at his death there is a completed and enforceable trust in favor of such beneficiary and the fund is held not to pass as a part of the estate of the depositor.

MAINE.

B SUB. TO A.

Northrop v. Hale, (1881), 73 Me. 66.

A put her money in bank in the name of " B, sub. to A." A retained the bank book during her lifetime and it was in her possession when she died. B did not know of the deposit until after A's death.

Held, the money belongs to A's estate and not to B. The essentials to a gift, delivery to B and loss of dominion by A, are wanting in this case.

On June 10, 1874 Eliza M. Robinson deposited in the Portland Savings Bank $2,000 in an account:

"Mary Eliza Northrop; sub. to E. M. Robinson."

Mrs. Eliza M. Robinson was childless and Mary was a daughter of her nephew. Eliza retained the bank book during her lifetime and it was in her possession at the time of her death. She drew the dividends as they accrued and $25 of the principal and used the sums so drawn entirely for her own use. It did not appear that Mary ever knew of the fact of the deposit having been made.

A bill in equity by Mary against the administrator of Eliza for the deposit was dismissed.

Held: There was no gift inter vivos. The bank book remained in the possession of Mrs. Robinson. The funds deposited ever remained subject to her control. By the very terms of the deposit as entered on the books of the bank it was "sub. (subject) to Mrs. E. M. Robinson," and her conduct and that of the bank was in entire accordance with such views. The entry in the pass-book decisively establishes the proposition that here there wa no complete and perfect gift.

A declaration of an intention to give is not a gift. The donor must be divested of, and the donee invested with, the right of property. The indi pensable essentials of a gift, delivery to the donee, and loss of dominion over it by the donor, are wanting in this case.

In the case at bar there was not merely no notice at any time of the deposit, and no delivery to Mary of the

pass-book, but a complete control of the deposit reserved to the depositor and exercised by her.

If there is a trust in the case at bar, it is for the depositor. There is no language indicating a trust for Mary but the reverse, that it was for the depositor subject to her control and controlled by her. This negatives a trust for Mary. There has been no delivery of the bank book. If the savings bank book was given to Mary as trustee, it was as trustee for the depositor. Parol evidence is admissible to show the intention of the depositor either at the time of the deposit or subsequently, but none such was offered. Neither did the depositor declare herself as trustee, or as making the deposit for a cestui que trust for whom she was trustee. Where a trust is once completely and effectually created, whether by a formal instrument, or by parol where a parol declaration is sufficient, the trust is beyond revocation, by the simple act of the donor. But here there was no such trust. There never was a moment when the depositor had not entire control of the funds and when she could not have revoked the trust if there had been one created.

B; c. B. P. A.

Northrop v. Hale, (1881), 73 Me. 71.

A, having $1,700 on deposit in her own name and being limited to $2,000 in that account, deposited the further sum of $2,000 in the name of " B, c. b. p. (can be paid) A." A always retained the book and B did not know of the deposit until after A's death. Held, the money belongs to A's estate as she never divested herself of title.

On June 29, 1874, Elizabeth M. Robinson having $1,700 in the Maine Savings Bank, which bank was subject to the provisions of the statute limiting the amount of any one depositor to $2,000, deposited the further sum of $2,000 in the name George J. Northrop; c. b. p. (can be paid) Elizabeth M. Robinson."

A bill by George against the administrator of Elizabeth to recover the deposit was dismissed.

Held: The deposit, when made, was not deposited in trust for the complainant, who was not aware of its existence, so far as appears. If there was any trust it was for the depositor, but this bill is not brought to enforce any such trust.

Mrs. Robinson always had the book; she never parted with it. She never by word or act transferred her title, but drew for her own purposes the accruing interest and such portion of the original deposit as she deemed expedient. The control of the money deposited never vested, and was never intended to vest, in the complainant. There was never a moment of time when he could have drawn out a dollar had he so wished. It ever remained under the control of the depositor.

B, SUBJECT TO A DURING HER LIFETIME. Barker v. Frye, (1883), 75 Me. 29.

A deposited money in the name of " B, subject to A during her lifetime," informing the bank and also B that the money was for him. Subsequently she had the words subject to A" erased, telling the bank the time had come to give B full control and the money become B's absolute property to stand in his name without restriction. She also informed B by letter, and he replied, requesting her to send him the book. Afterwards A delivered the book to C, with a written order for the deposit. After A's death, in a controversy between B and C, B is held entitled to the money. When the deposit was first made, the intention of A was clearly shown and there was a declaration of trust in favor of B. When later, the words "subject to order of A" were erased, A divested herself of trusteeship, B's letter requesting the book was an acceptance of the gift, and the money was B's absolutely. The actual delivery of the deposit book to B was not necessary. A was without power, therefore, to dispose of the money.

In May, 1870, Lydia P. Frye, grandmother of the plaintiff, Edward Barker, and of three others, made four distinct but equal deposits in the Augusta Savings Bank taking a book for each with the same heading except the name, the one here in question being payable Edward Barker, subject to the order of Lydia P. Frye during her lifetime."

66

Subsequently she made other deposits which, with the accumulated interest, were duly entered in the book. Each book had upon it the same amount. The dividend of August 1, 1872 was withdrawn. At the time of making the first deposit, Mrs. Frye said to the treasurer of the bank that she desired to make a deposit for each of her grandchildren, of whom she named Edward Barker as one, to which she proposed to make additions from time to time, and expressed the hope that with the accumulated interest, the deposit might amount to enough to be of advantage to them when they should reach a suitable age to take charge of the money themselves. She said she "wanted to do something for the children." She subsequently informed Barker of what she had done and that the money was intended for him and the other children.

* * *

On September 19, 1881, Mrs. Frye appeared at the bank with the books and informed the treasurer" that the time had come when she desired to make such a change in the terms of the deposits made for her grandchildren as would give them full control over them, and the amounts on each book become the absolute property of the parties named therein and her right to control them should cease. Her expressed wish was that her claim over the amount of the deposits should be withdrawn as to each case, and the books so changed that they would stand in the names of her grandchildren without any restriction whatever." The treasurer then, and at her request, erased from the books the original entry, "sub