Deposits in savings banks are peculiarly prolific in questions as to the real owner of the deposit. Husband and wife often make deposits in the bank in their joint names, and the rule as to ownership when one dies is difficult to find. One case held such a deposit meant that the deposit belonged to the survivor.1 But a deposit to the credit of "J., or wife B.," was held to prove simply that each should have power to draw the money.2 Another case says that such a deposit is payable to either or to the survivor, but not to the personal representative of one and the other equally.3 It is plain that the rule of survivorship ought to govern in such a case, and the deposit should belong to the administrator of the one last deceased. But where a deposit is in the joint names of two persons, not husband and wife, without any provision as to survivorship, no presumption as to survivorship ought to be indulged, and the case should be left to proof as to the respective portions of each depositor where one of them is deceased. In the absence of proof the deposit ought to be divided equally. Deposits are often made by one person in the name of another. In such a case evidence is always admissible to show the intention of the depositor in making the deposit.4 Thus, where a father made a deposit in his daughter's name, evidence was admitted to show that he intended to make her trustee for him, because he already had in his own name as much money deposited as the law permitted.5 The question as to the ownership is complicated by the rule that the delivery of the bank-book is necessary in order to draw the deposit. So it is held that a deposit to the credit of one person as trustee for another, where the deposit is made by the first person, and the other was not cognizant of the deposit and did not receive the pass-book during the life-time of the depositor, was not a deposit owned by the beneficiary under this rule, although there was evidence to show that the depositor intended to create a trust.6 But these cases are wrong, because the by-law or rule is not intended to regulate deposits in trust, and at any rate the book is only necessary to the conveyance of the legal title. The cases holding the other rule are much to be preferred.7 But where a deposit is made payable to either of two or the survivor and no delivery of the book is made, the deposit is the property of the depositor.8 In these cases also the book ought to have been held merely evidence of the legal title, and the provision of survivorship ought to have created a trust unless there was parol evidence to rebut it. The court makes the mistake of considering the case one of gift, it ought to have been considered as a declaration of trust, just as if it were to the use of both during the life of both, then to holds that the illegality in the contract could not be set up by the daughter, a stranger to it, nor was it an estoppel in her favor. In another case a deposit was made in an assumed name. Davenport v. Savings Bank, 36 Hun, 303. The refusal of the bank to pay the owner of the deposit was held to be unjustifiable, where he proved his ownership of the deposit by an affidavit and tendered the passbook. But even if the bank had paid under such circumstances it is difficult to see how it would have been protected against the real owner of the deposit, had the affidavit proven untrue.

14 Gifford v. Rutland Sav. Inst, 63 Vt. 108. The man who drew the deposit could not sign his own name properly, yet the court says this was not a suspicious circumstance. It may not be so in Vermont, but it would probably be held to be elsewhere, even in Louisiana, 1 In re Brooks, 5 Dem. Sur. 326.

2 Burke v. Slattery, 31 N. Y. Supp. 825.

3Mulcahey v. Emigrant Sav. Bank, 62 How. Pr. 463. Compare In re Smith, 17 Abb. N. C. 7a

4 Northrup v. Hale, 72 Me. 275; Gerrish v. New Bedford Inst, 128 Mass. 159.

5Brabrook v. Five Cent Sav. Bank, 104 Mass. 228. The case.

6 Clark v. Clark, 108 Mass. 522; Bartlett v. Remington, 59 N. H. 364 Compare Pope v. Burlington Sav. Bank, 56 Vt. 284

7 Blasdell v. Locke, 52 N. H. 238; Boone v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 84 N. Y. 83; Weaver v. Emigrant Sav. Bank, 17 Abb. N. C. 82.

8 Gorman v. Gorman, 39 Atl. R. 1038 (Md.). The language of this opinion goes far beyond anything necessary to be decided. The parol evidence rebutted the trust and that ended the case. Flanagan v. Nash, 185 Pa. 41.

the use of the survivor.9 The trust is not executory, it is executed, and there remains nothing to be done in order to complete the declaration of trust. Surely the depositor need not say to himself, I deliver this book from myself to myself as trustee. Another case holds, however, that a deposit by a husband in his wife's name is not a deposit in trust for her;10 and in yet another case the same ruling was very properly made where the deposit was so made that either the husband or wife could draw it.11