In like manner as a donor may constitute himself a trustee and perfect a gift, likewise it necessarily follows that a donor with power to bind and hold for a corporation may bind the corporation. Love v. Francis, 29 N.W. 843; Yokem v. Hicks, 93 Ill. App. 667; McMahon v. Lawler, 77 N.E. 489; In re Brady's Estate, 239 N.Y. Supp. 6, 173 N.E. 879; In re Valentine's Estate, 204 N.Y. Supp. 285; Tucker v. Tucker, 116 N.W. 119. If it be sound law as expressed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, in the case of Miller, Alien Property Custodian, et al. v. Herzfeld, 4 F.2d 355, that doubt as to whether a gift was perfected may be determined by subsequent declarations of the donor showing the nature of the transaction, there can be no question of the gift in this cause.
Gerrish v. New Bedford Institution for Savings, 128 Mass. 159. Chace v. Chapin, 130 Mass. 128. Peck v. Scofield, 186 Mass. 108, 111. Mee v. Fay, 190 Mass. 40, 42. McMahon v. Lawler, 190 Mass. 343. Supple v. Suffolk Savings Bank, 198 Mass. 393. McCaffrey v. North Adams Savings Bank, 244 Mass. 396. Buteau v. Lavalle, 284 Mass. 276. Compare Bailey v. New Bedford Institution for Savings, 192 Mass. 564; Mulloy v. Charlestown Five Cents Savings Bank, 285 Mass. 101. Neither is there any rule applicable to all trusts requiring notice to, and acceptance by, the cestui.
There was evidence that the plaintiff himself, after the fire but before he learned of it, stated that this policy had been cancelled and that no liability attached to the company. This was like the admissions which were held to warrant a finding in McMahon v. Lawler, 190 Mass. 343. Accordingly, in each of the three cases, there must be
Welch v. Henshaw, 170 Mass. 409. Kendrick v. Ray, 173 Mass. 305. Bennett v. Littlefield, 177 Mass. 294. Bailey v. NewBedford Institution for Savings, 192 Mass. 564. Boynton v. Gale, 194 Mass. 320. But admissions by an alleged donor that there has been an executed gift or a completed trust may of course be proved against her or her representatives, and may be found to include admissions that there has been either an actual delivery of the article or an effectual communication of the trust to the intended beneficiary and an acceptance of it by the latter. McMahon v. Lawler, 190 Mass. 343. In that case the gift was sustained, not because the intention of the donor had been made known to others, but because from her admissions a finding was warranted that the gift had been communicated to the beneficiary and accepted by her.
Peck v. Scofield, 186 Mass. 108. Debinson v. Emmons, 158 Mass. 592. Eastman v. Woronoco Savings Bank, 136 Mass. 208. Pierce v. Boston Five Cents Savings Bank, 129 Mass. 425. The mere fact that there was also evidence which would have warranted a different finding is not for us to consider. McMahon v. Lawler, 190 Mass. 343. It may well be, as contended by the executor, that if there had been here no completed and absolute gift the attempted dispositions could not have been sustained by treating them as declarations of trust; but that question does not arise, and his claim that Miss Bone is absolutely bound by admissions to be inferred from her language and conduct, and cannot explain these away or stand upon any ground inconsistent with them, is not to be supported. Baldy v. Stratton, 11 Penn. St. 316.
" In the opinion in Alger v. North End Savings Bank, 146 Mass. 418, 422, we find similar language. Other cases of like import are Clark v. Clark, 108 Mass. 522; Ide v. Pierce, 134 Mass. 260; Nutt v. Morse, 142 Mass. 1; Sherman v. New Bedford Five Cents Savings Bank, 138 Mass. 581; Booth v. Bristol County Savings Bank, 162 Mass. 455; Welch v. Henshaw, 170 Mass. 409; Cleveland v. Hampden Savings Bank, 182 Mass. 110; McMahon v. Lawler, 190 Mass. 343. In the present case, although the testimony tends to show an intention of the testatrix that the boy Edward should have this money after her death, there is no evidence of a delivery and acceptance of a gift of it in her lifetime, or of anything tantamount to a delivery and acceptance.