BBOCEHAUS t). EEMl^A, 619 �could not revoke. I can have no doubt iHat iii wa8, tinleSB the circnmstances imder -which the act was done can have thie effect to create other rightsbetween the' parties. �The complainant did all that he could do to make the gift of the policy to his daughter complete and effectuai. He paid the premiums while the original policy was running, and procured the paid-up policy to be issued, payable in express terms to his daughter Aima at a specified time, and without any condition or stipulation in the policy reserving a right to change or alter it, so far as the bill shows ; and, in the lan- guage of some of the cases cited, this was all that could well be done, under the circumstances, so far as the father and child were concerned, to vest in Jiis appointee the entire interest in the policy and all rights thereunder. As between those parties no further ceremony or fact was needed to the perfection of the gift. Sancb-um v. Knowles, supra. The gift wa8 voluntary, but it was completely executed, and nothing further remained to be done but to await the period wben the insuranoe company could be called on to make payment. That period was reached, and the complainant then received the proceeds of the insurance, not for himself or in his indivi- dual name or right, but as the guardian and representative of his daughter; so that in legal effect the payment was made to her as the beneficiary. This, if it were essential, was the consummative act, completing the gift beyond recall, unless, as before stated, the circumstances of the whole transaction so affected the relations of the parties as to qualify or change what would otherwise be strictly legal rights. Did the circumstances have that effect ? I cannut think they did. Mrs. Kemna was not bound by the arrangement made in the alleged "family council," nor by the subsequent agreement which she signed. She was under the disability of infancy, and she could if she would, on attaining her majority, dis- affirm and repudiate the agreement. The bill shows that the complainant was unable tO continue the payment of premi- ums on the original policies, and that it was therefore deter- minedthat those policies shouldbe surrendered and exchanged ��� �
