A chose in action not negotiable and nego tiable paper not endorsed may be the sub ject of a gift, and a delivery which vests in the donee the equitable title is sufficient without a complete transfer of the legal ti tle; First Nat. Bank of Richmond v. Hot land, 99 Va. 495, 39 S. E. 126, 55 L. R. A. 155, 86 Am. St. Rep. 898; Basket v. Hasse% 107 U. S. 602, 2 Sup. Ct. 415, 27 L. Ed. 500; Grover v. Grover, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 261, 35 Am. Dec. 319. Where a father gives money deposited in bank to his infant son, the gift will not be defeated by the failure of the father 'to deliver to the son the pass book evidencing the gift, the father as natural guardian being the proper custodian of such book during the infancy of the son; Beaver v. Beaver, 62 Hun 194, 16 N. Y. Supp. 476, 746. The instances here given are merely illustrative of the cases on the subject of the necessity of delivery, the number of which is almost without limit.
The mere deposit by one in trust for an other does not establish an irrevocable trust. It is a tentative trust, revocable at will, un til the depositor dies or completes the gift during his lifetime; In re Totten, 179 N. Y. 112, 71 N. E. 748, 70 L. R. A. 711, 1 Ann, Cas. 900, reversing id., 89 App. Div. 368, 85 N. Y. Supp. 928. It is a question of the de positor's intent; In re Barefield, 177 N. Y.
387, 69 N. E. 732, 101 Am. St. Rep. 814; Cleveland v. Bank, 182 Mass. 110, 65 N. E. 27; Estate of Smith, 144 Pa. 428, 22 Atl. 916, 27 Am. St. Rep. 641; Rombo v. Pile, 220 Pa. 235, 69 Atl. 807. See 14 Yale L. J. 315 ; Brady; Bank Deposits.
The declaration of the depositor may make the trust valid ; Merigan v. McGonigle, 205 Pa. 321, 54 Atl. 994. The retention of the pass book by the depositor does not rebut the idea of a trust; Bath Say. Inst. v. Hathorn, 88 Me. 122, 33 Atl. 836, 32 L. R. A., 377, 51 Am. St. Rep. 382 ; Estate of Gaffney, 146 Pa. 49, 23 Atl. 163 ; Robertson v. McCarty, 54 App. Div. 103, 66 N. Y. Supp. 327. But the deliv ery of the pass book will render the trust ir revocable ; In re Totten, 179 N. Y. 112, 71 N. E. 748, 70 L. R. A. 711, 1 Ann. Cas. 900. No tice to the beneficiary may create a trust ; but absence of notice does not establish con clusively that there was no trust ; Bath Say. Inst. v., Hathorn, 88 Me. 122, 33 Atl. 836, 32 L. R. A. 377, 51 Am. St. Rep. 382 ; Gerrish v. Say. Inst., 128 Mass. 159, 35 Am. Rep. 365.
It is held that where the intent was that the beneficiary should take only at the death of the depositor, the fund passed at his death to the depositor's estate ; Coolidge v. Knight,
194 Mass. 546, 80 N. E. 620, 120 Am. St. Rep. 573. A deposit cannot be made which will be revocable, but will take effect as a trust after death ; Appeal of Main, 73 Conn. 638, 48 Atl. 965 ; Whalen v. Milholland, 89 Md. 199, 43 Atl. 45, 44 L. R. A. 208, as a testamentary act can be done only under the statute of wills. But see 179 N. Y. 112, 71 N. E. 748, 70 L. R. A. 711, 1 Ann. Cas. 900, supra. One who makes a deposit in trust for a fictitious person does not lose control of his money; Garvey v. Clifford, 114 App. Div. 193, 99 N. Y. Supp. 555 ; Nicklas v. Parker, 69 N. J. Eq. 743, 61 Atl. 267.
During the lifetime of the depositor, the bank may allow him to draw out the fund ; Pennsylvania Title,& Trust Co. v. Meyer, 201 Pa. 299, 50 Atl. 998 ; Sayre v. Weil, 94 Ala. 466, 10 South. 421; the beneficiary cannot compel the bank to pay him during the de positor's lifetime ; Hemmerich v. Union Inst., 144 App. Div. 413, 129 N. Y. Supp. 267.
A gift is effectual only after the intention to make it has been accompanied by delivery of possession or some equivalent act ; Smith's Estate, 144 Pa. 428, 22 Atl. 916, 27 Am. St. Rep. 641.
Where one made large deposits in a bank as nominally trustee for another, but only for his own convenience and intending to re tain his ownership, no title passed to the ces tui que trust ; it is a question of intention ; Rambo v. Plle, 220 Pa. 235, 69 Atl. 807. What was intended as a gift, but is imperfect, can not be made effectual by construing it as a declaration of trust ; Smith's Estate, 144 Pa. 428, 22 Atl. 916, 27 Am. St. Rep. 641, follow ing L. R. 18 Eq. 11. If a trust is intended, it will be equally effectual whether the donor, transfers the title to a trustee, or declare himself such ; Smith's Estate, 144 Pa. 428, 22 Atl. 916, 27 Am. St. Rep. 641.
Where a savings bank depositor has lost his book, gives an order upon the bank and delivers it to the donee with words indicating a gift, this is a valid gift, at least if the order has been accepted by the bank ; Candee v. Savings Bank, 81 Conn. 372, 71 Atl. 551, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 568. Where the deposit was in the donee's name, but subject to donor's order, and the donor told the donee he meant to give him the money: the pass book was giv en to the donee, but taken back by the donor for safe keeping, and the donor gave the donee a writing certifying that the money was for him, and the donor never exercised ownership over the fund, it was held a valid gift ; Eastman v. Savings Bank, 136 Mass. 208.