The trial judge ruled that the donor, Minnie Lee, did not irrevocably part with all control over the transferred property and the donees, her children, had not received a full and complete estate, and, therefore, the estates that had been transferred could not be the subjects of advancements. In so ruling, the trial judge relied upon our decision in Albers v. Young, 119 Colo. 37, 199 P.2d 890. However, the Alvers case involved the creation of a joint bank account and is readily distinguishable from the present case.

There are such children in the world — and fortunate for the world it is that that is so. The record discloses that some of Jansen's children were obviously not of that reliable type. In Albers v. Young, 119 Colo. 37, 199 P.2d 890, 892, the Supreme Court of Colorado said: "It is argued that since there is no evidence in the record showing the intention of decedent, other than the fact of the creation of the joint account, the presumption that an advancement was intended is conclusive.

See In Re Estate of Barnhart v. Burkhardt, supra. Albers v. Young, 119 Colo. 37, 199 P.2d 890 (1948), relied upon by wife, is not in point. There, the donor did not agree with the donee that the money should be withdrawn from the joint account, nor that it should be used to purchase other assets in the donee's name.