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; 62 Hun 194. The instances here given are merely illus- trative of the cases on the subject of the necessity of delivery, the number of which is almost without limit. For a full discus- sion of the subject, see Thornt. Gifts & Adv. ch. ix., where the cases are collected; 15 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 701, n.; 15 Va. L. J. 737; 82 Cent. L. J. 11; 25 Ir. L. T. 4, 409. As to what circumstances will dispense with actual physical delivery, see 9 id. 639; 26 Am. L. Reg. 587: Law Q. Rev. 446; see also DONATIO MORTIS CAUSA, with respect to delivery, the requisites of which in the two classes of gifts are the same ; Thornt. Gifts § 130; 1 Nott & McC. 237; 2 Sandf. Ch. 400. "Gifts inter vivos and gifts causa mortis differ in nothing, ex- cept that the latter are made in expecta- tion of death, become effectual only upon the death of the donor, and may be re- voked. Otherwise, the same principles apply to each." 46 Me. 48; 3 Del. Ch. 51; 89 Mo. 546; 80 N. Y. 422; 78 Ky. 572;.54 Md. 175. A parol gift of land is valid when possession is taken and valuable improve- ments are made thereunder; 83 Tex. 563. When the gift is perfect it is then irre- vocable, unless it is prejudicial to credit- ors or the donor was under a legal incapacity or was circumvented by fraud; except in case of donatio mortis causa (q. v.), as to which one of the distinguishing char- acteristics is that it is revocable during the donor's life. If a man, intending to give a jewel to another, say to him, Here I give you my ring with the ruby in it, etc., and with his own hand delivers it to the party, this will be a good gift notwithstanding the ring bear any other jewel, being delivered by the party himself to the person to whom given; Bacon, Max. 87. See 66 Hun 632. Where a father bought a ticket in a lot- tery, which he declared he gave to his in- fant daughter E., and wrote her name upon it, and after the ticket had drawn a prize he declared that he had given the ticket to his child E., and that the prize money was hers, this was held sufficient for a jury to infer all the formality requi- site to a valid gift, and that the title in the money was complete and vested in E. See 10 Johns. 293. Where notes are endorsed by the owner, placed in a pocketbook, and the packet marked with the name of the donees, a delivery to one of the donees is sufficient, though he at once returns the packet to the donor to keep for the pres- ent; 51 Mo. App. 237. A certificate of deposit may be the sub- ject of gift, and, when endorsed and deliv ered for such purpose, the gift is perfect and cannot be revoked by the donor before the money is collected; 97 Ala. 700. A written assignment, under seal, of money in the hands of a third person, delivered to the assignee, constitutes a valid gift and ac- ceptance of the money; 141 Ν. Υ. 179. See two papers containing an extended examination and discussion of the authori- ties on the subject of gifts causa mortis of checks and orders published after the title on that subject had gone through the press; 36 Am. L. Reg. 247, 289. A special act directing a board of super- visors of a city to pay a certain sum as com- pensation for the improvement of streets to an individual was held to be a gift of public money to an individual, and hence within the inhibition of the constitution and void; 99 Cal. 17. See, generally, Thornton, Gifts and Ad- vancements, and an elaborate classified list of authorities in the St. Louis Law Library Catalogue. DONATIO INTER VIVOS; Do- NATIO MORTIS CAUSA; DONATIO. MORNING