Certain choses in action have such tangible form that the form is popularly regarded as being itself the obligation. To some extent the law has sanctioned this popular view. A bond, a policy of insurance, negotiable paper, a savings bank book,

46 Colonial Bank v. Cady, 15 A. C. 267, 278, 285; Ambrose v. Evans, 66 Cal. 74, 4 Poo. 960; Arnold v. Johnson, 66 Cal. 402, 5 Pac. 796; Otis v. Gardner, 105 111. 436. But see Ireland v. Hart, [1902] 1 Ch. 622; Taliaferro v. First Bank, 71 Md. 200, 214, 17 Atl. 1036; Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. v. Daugherty, 62 Ohio St. 589, 57 N. E. 455.

47 Rimmer v. Webster, [1902] 2 Ch. 163; Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh, 101 U. S. 572 25 L. Ed. 923; Adams v. District of Columbia, 17 Ct. of Cl. 351; International Bank v. German Bank, 71 Mo. 183, 36 Am. Rep. 468; Putnam v. Clark, 29 N. J. Eq. 412; Grocers' Bank v. Neet, 29 N. J. Eq. 449; Combes v. Chandler, 33 Oh. St. 178; Taylor v. Gitt, 10 Barr, 428. But see Blackman v. Lehman, 63 Ala. 547, 35 Am. Rep. 57; Covell v. Tradesman's Bank, 1 Paige, 131; Patterson v. Rabb, 38 S. C. 138, 17 8. E. 463, 19 L. R. A. 831.

48 Plummer v. People's Bank, 65 Iows, 405, 21 N. W. 699. But see Brown p. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 75 Minn. 412, 78 N. W. 103, 671, 79 N. W. 968; Culmer v. American Grocery Co., 21 N. Y. App. Div. 556, 48 N. Y. 8. 431.

49See Cowdrey s. Vandenburgh, 101 U. S. 572, 25 L. Ed. 923; Campbell v. Brackenridge, 8 Black, 471, Thurston v. McLellan, 34 App. D. C. 294; Cochran v. Stewart, 21 Minn. 435; Moore v. Metropolitan Bank, 56 N. Y. 41, 14 Am. Rep. 173; Mifflin County Bank's Appeal, 98 Pa. 150; State Bank p. Hastings, 15 Wis. 75. But see Owen v. Evans, 134 N. Y. 514, 31 N. E. 999; Central Trust Co. v. West India Co., 169 N. Y. 314, 324, 62 N. E. 387.

50 Blackman v. Lehman, 63 Ata. 547, 35 Am. Rep. 57; Midland Railroad Co. v. Hitchcock, 37 N. J. Eq. 549. See also Combs v. Hodge, 21 How. 397, 16 L. Ed. 116.

is more than mere evidence of a claim. Indeed, wherever the surrender of the document is essential to the enforcement of a chose in action this method of looking at the matter is technically exact.51

Where for instance a bank book must be presented as a prerequisite to drawing money (as is ordinarily true of savings bank books) the book itself is representative of the obligation. Where on the other hand (as is ordinarily true in regard to bank accounts subject to check) a bank book need not be presented in order to withdraw deposits, it is merely convenient evidence of the claim against the bank, not representative of it. In accordance with this distinction (though as will be seen from the following section a gift of an intangible chose in action unless made by deed or for consideration is ineffectual to create an irrevocable right52) the mere delivery of a policy of insurance,53 or savings bank book,54 or a non-negotiable or unindorsed bill or note of a third person,55 or lottery ticket,56 with intent to give creates an irrevocable right in the donee to enforce the claim, and delivery to a third person on behalf of the donee is sufficient though unknown to the donee, if the transaction is beneficial to him.57

51 See also, infra, Sec.11042.

52The gift, of course, becomes effectual if the chose in action is reduced to possession or a novation made with the debtor before revocation. See, e. g., Marston v. Industrial Trust Co. (R. I.), 107 Atl. 88.

53Gledhill v. McCoombs, 110 Me. 341, 86 Atl. 247; Harrison v. McCon-key, 1 Md. Ch. 34; Crittenden v. Phoenix Co., 41 Mich. 442,2 N. W. 657; McCord v. Noyes, 3 Bradf. (N. Y. Surr.) 139; Licey v. Licey, 7 Barr, 251,253,47 Am. Dec 513; Bond v. Bunting, 78 Pa. 210, 218; Madeira's App., 17 W. N. C. (Pa.) 202; Malone's Estate, 13 Phils. 313; Northwestern Mutual L. I. Ins. Co. p. Wright, 153 Wis. 252, 140 N. W. 1078. See also New York life Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy, 214 Fed. 1, 180 C. C. A. 473.

54Camp's Appeal, 36 Conn. 88, 4 Am. Dec. 39; Schollmier v. Seboen-delen, 78 Ia. 426, 43 N. W. 282, 16 Am. St. Rep. 455; Hill v. Stevenson, 63 Me. 364, 18 Am. Rep. 231; Drew v. Hagerty, 81 Me. 231, 17 Atl. 63, 3 L. R. A. 230, 10 Am. St. Rep. 255; Augusta Savings Bank v. Fogg, 82

Me. 638, 541, 20 Atl. 92; Frentz v. Schwarze, 122 Md. 12, 89 Atl. 439; Kimball v. Leland, 110 Mass. 325; Foes v. Lowell Bank, 111 Mass. 285; Sheedy v. Roach, 124 Mass. 472, 26 Am. Rep. 680; Davis v. Ney, 125 Mass. 590, 28 Am. Rep. 272; Pierce V. Boston Bank, 129 Mass. 425,37 Am. Rep. 371; Wade v. Smith, 213 Mass. 34, 99 N. E. 477; Laing v. Durand, 84 N. 3. Eq. 404, 93 Atl. 884; Penfield v. Thayer, 2 E. D. Sm. 305. (See Curry v. Powers, 70 N. Y. 212, 25 Am. Rep. 577); Ridden v. Thrall, 125 N. Y. 572, 21 Am. St. Rep. 758; Hoar v. Hoar, 5 Redf. (N. Y. Surr. Ct.) 637; Fiero v. Fiero, 5 Th. & C. (N. Y. Super. Ct.), 151; Tillin-hast V. Wheaton, 8 R. I. 536, 5 Am. Rep. 621, 94 Am. Dec. 126; Case v. Dennison, 9 L. I. 88,11 Am. Rep. 222; Providence Inst. v. Taft, 14 R. I. 502. See also Venturi v. Silvio, 197 Als. 607, 73 So. 45. But see, contra, M'Gonnell v. Murray, Ir. Rep. 3 Eq. 460; Murray v. Cannon, 41 Md. 466 (cf. Dougherty v. Moore, 71 Md. 248, 251, 18 Atl. 35, 17 Am. St. Rep. 524); Walsh's Appeal, 122 Ps. 177, 15 Atl. 470, 9 Am. St. Rep. 83. In Foley v. New York Sav.

Upon the authorities there is some difficulty presented by the gift of a non-negotiable bond. "In gifts causa mortis the irrevocable right of the donee is admitted both in England and the United States." 58 "In gifts inter vivos, on the other hand, if Edwards v. Jones,59 is still law, the donee has no chum against the obligor."60 A deed is as effective a method of giving a non-negotiable chose in actios having tangible form, as delivery of the document,61 as against the assignor or one having no higher right. As against a subsequent innocent purchaser of the document from the assignor, the grantee by deed would doubtless fail.

Bank, 157 N. Y. App. Div. 868, 142 N. Y. S. the court enforced a gift causs mortis, though the bank book was not actually delivered. The case seems questionable, though the donor's intent was sufficiently manifested, and an order was delivered. Where, however, the bank has expressly or impliedly accepted the donee as a creditor a valid novation may arise though the book was never delivered. Marston v. Industrial Trust Co., (R. I.) 107 Atl. 88.

55 Jones v. Deyer, 16 Ala. 221, 225; McHugh v. O'Connor, 91 Als. 243, 9 So. 165; Buschian v. Hughart, 28 Ind. 449; Gammon Seminary v. Robbing, 128 Ind. 85, 27 N. E. 341, 12 L. R. A. 506; Meriwether v. Morrison, 78 Ky. 572; Wing v. Merchant, 57 Me. 383; Trowbridge v. Holden, 58 Me. 117; Grover v. Grover, 24 Pick. 261, 35 Am. Dec. 319; Hale v. Rice, 124 Mass. 292; Lyle v. Burke, 40 Mich. 499; Ma-lone v. Doyle, 56 Mich. 222, 23 N. W. 26; Marston v. Marston, 21 N. H. 491; Westerlo v. DeWitt, 36 N. Y. 340, 93 Am. Dec. 517; Mack v. Mack, 3 Hun, 323; Montgomery v. Miller, 3 Redf. (N. Y. Surr.) 154; Scott v. Lauman, 104 Pa. 593; Homer's Appeal, 2 Pennyp. 289; Hopkins v. Manchester, 16 R. I. 663, 19 Atl. 243, 7 L. R. A. 387; Brun-son v. Brunson, Meigs, 630; Carpenter v. Dodge, 20 Vt. 695; Wilson v. Carpenter, 17 Wis. 612; Rupert v. Johns-ten, 40 U. S. Q. B. 11, 16. And see Lee v, Magrath, L. R. 10 Ir. 313. Hitch v. Davis, 3 Md. Ch. 266, is contra. A gift by the donor of his own note is of course ineffectual. Wisler v. Tomb, 169 Cal. 382, 146 Pac. 876.

56 Gold v. Rutland, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 346; Grangiac v. Arden, 10 Johns. 293.

57 Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Wright, 153 Wis. 252,140 N. W. 1078.

58Ames's Cases on Trusts (2d ed.), 145 n. citing: Snellgrove v. Baily, 3 Atk. 214; Duffield v. Ehves, 1 Bligh, n. s. 497, 542; Gardner v. Parker, 3 Mad. 184; Staniland v, Willott, 3 Macn. & G. 664, 676; Waring v, Edmonds, 11 Md. 424; Kiff v. Weaver, 94 N. C. 274, 55 Am. Rep. 601; Wells v. Tucker, 3 Binn. 366; Lee v. Bosk, 11 Gratt. 182.

591 Mylne & Cr. 226.

60 Ames's Cases on Trusts (2d ed.), 145. The author adds: "This case was followed in Searle c. Law, 15 Sim. 96, and approved in Be Richardson, 30 Ch. Div. 396, 401, 404. But see, contra, Roberta v. Lloyd, 2 Beav. 376; Patterson v. Williams, LI. & G. temp. Plunket, 95, 99 (semble); and especially in Re Patrick, [1891] 1 Ch. 82.

This distinction between a gift inter vivos and a donatio morris cause, it is safe to say, was not contemplated by Lord Hardwicke in Snellgrove v.

The point which has troubled the courts in regard to assignments by voluntary deed is the frequently asserted rule that equity will not aid a voluntary covenant. This rule should not prevent, however, an assignment by deed from operating as an irrevocable power. The difficulty such as it is has troubled the courts only in dealing with assignments of legal choses in action. A voluntary assignment of an equitable chose in action (that is a right enforceable only in equity as that of a cestui que trust against his trustee) has not been questioned.61a

Baily, 3 Atk. 214. See also 1 Bligh, (N. S.) 497, 506, per Sugden arguendo. And since the donor cannot recover the bond from the donee, having voluntarily parted with it (Barton p. Gainer, 3 H. & N. 387, nee also supra, 140 n. 1; infra, 156, n. 1; 162, n. 4), and for want of it is also without remedy against the obligor, we have this anomalous condition of things, namely, two adverse claimants of a debt confessedly due, and the courts powerless to give judgment for either.

This unfortunate conclusion is avoided, and consistency maintained, in this country, where the gift of a bond inter vivos is put on the same footing with a gift in view of death. Ensign v, Kellogg, 4 Pick. 1; Hunt v. Hunt, 119 Mass. 474; Cox v. Hill, 6 Md. 274 (semble); Runkman v. Ruckman, 33 N. J. Eq. 364; Gilchrist v. Stevenson, 9 Barb. 9; Hunter v. Hunter, 19 Barb. 631; Hackney v. Vrooman, 62 Barb. 660; Johnson v. Spies, 5 Hun, 468 (semle); Taber v. Willets, 44 Hun, 346; Re Wirt, 6 Dan. 179; Pringle v. Pringle, 69 Pa. 281; Zimmerman v. Streeper, 76 Pa. 147; Elam v. Keen, 4 Leigh, 333; Sterling v. Wilkinson, 83 Va. 791, 3 S. E. 533 (semble); Lewis p. Mason's Adm'r, 84 Va. 731, 10 S. E. 529 (semble); Fleabman p. Hoylman, 27 W. Va. 728; Wilson v. Carpenter, 17 Wis. 612 (semble). See also Rupert v. Johnston, 40 U. C. Q. B. 11, 16, 17." But see Wood v. Partridge, 11 Mass. 483.

61 Hopkins v. Radford, Brownlow, 40; Drakeford p. Wilks, 3 Atk. 539; Patterson v. Williams, LI. & G. temp. Plunket, 95, 99; Pearson v. Amicable Assurance Office, 27 Beav. 229; Sew-ell p. King, 14 Ch. D. 179; Justice v. Wynne, 12 Ir. Ch. R. 289; Otis v. Beck-with, 49 111. 1211 Badgley v. Votrain, 68 111. 26, 28,18 Am. Rep. 541; Massey v. Huntington, 118 111. 80, 7 N. E. 269; Emley v. Perrine, 58 N. J. L. 472, 33 Atl. 951; Trough's Est., 76 Pa. 115; Bond v. Bunting, 78 Pa. 210; Scott v. Dixon, 108 Pa. 6, 66 Am. Rep. 192. But see contra, Ward I, Audland, 8 Beav. 201.

61a Donaldson v. Donaldson, Kay, 711; Villers v. Beaumont, 1 Vern. 100; Ellison v. Ellison, 6 Ves. 666; Bentley v. Mackay, 15 Beav. 12; Voyle v. Hughes, 2 8m. ft G. 18; Lambe v. Orton, 1 Dr. ft Sm. 125; Gilbert v. Overton, 2 Hem. ft M. 110; Be Way's Trusts, 2 D. J. ft S. 365; Nanney v. Morgan, 37 Ch. Div. 346; Re Lucan, 45 Ch. D. 470; Gannon v. White, 2 Ir. Eq. 207; Ensign v. Kellogg, 4 Pick. 1;