The Washington herald., 1906-11-10
TIFFANYS NOT FREE
Court Holds jewelers. Son
Was Never Divorced.
WIFE WANTS VALUABLE GOODS
Young Man Makes Pre-nuDtiai
Agreement, and IL Vow EntaDgled
in suits-Marriage May BE AnnuIled
as Result of Effort 60 Throw on
His Debts-Married Three Years.

New York. Nov 9.-Burnett Tiffany and
his wife will have TO satisfy the Supreme
Court that each Of them was legally free
to marry al the time they became man
and wife. if Mrs. Tiffany proposes to hold
on to the $4,000 worth Of furniture which
/ ornaments their home at l25 West Eighty
eighth street.
Such is the determination Of the ap-
pelate division of the Supreme Court. in
an opinion made public to-day. The i'm
mediate effect Of the decision is to order
a retrial Of the suit brought by Edward
Hosmer, the trustee ia bankruptcy Of
Burnett Y. Tiffany. against the bankrupt
and his wife
The suit was tried some months ago
before Justice Mccall who dismissed the
complaint, thus deciding in favor Of the
Tinanys.
Burnett Y. Tiffany displeased his father,
Charles l.. Tiffany, head Of the jewelry
firm, by an unfortunate marriage in 1ssS,
and increased this displeasure by a career
Of youthful dissipation, Of which the mar
riage WAS but an incident From then
,iII his death the father willed this son
time 30 time he did wipe out his most
pressing debts.
Divorced After Three Years.
Il took only three years for the mar
riage 20 result in divorce which Emma
Tiffany got in Rhode Island In 1881 on the
ground Of desertion.
Tiffany was anxious for freedom and
let the suit go by default. In 1902 Charles
/. Tiffany died. leaving an estate
amounting to about Sl000c00 This ne
divided among his children. all save Bur
nett. TO whom be left only an income
OF S2.0G0 year, with discretion vested in
the executors 10 increase the income If
the young man reformed. He did re-
form considerably IN the opinion OF the
executors, and his income was soon in
creased 10 $ISo90 year. at which figure
il now stands. despite Burnetts frantic
efforts to gain a further increase. 4
year after his fathers death Tiffany
married his present wife. who was not
wholly accepted by his relatives.
Tiffany and his wife agree IN stating
that she steadily refused 90 marry him
until he had promised 90 furnish a home
for her IN expensive style, and 10 make
her a wedding present Of the furnishings.
In carrying ont this agreement Tiffany
incurred the furniture bills. but the firms
could not collect the money. and Tiffany
fled a petition in bankruptcy. Then the
firms sued the Tinanys for the return of
the furniture. but Justice Mccall decided
that the furniture had passed 10 Mrs.
Tiffany for a valid consideration, and dis
missed the case
Refuses 90 Hear Testimony.
During the hearing Justice Mccall up
held objections TO questions In regard 10
Mrs Tihany's previous matrimonial
record. The lawyers for the creditors
having tired 10 show that a previous di-
vorce OF hers was invalid under the
notable decision Of the United States Su-
preme Court in the HaddOCk case.
Justice Houghton. writing the opinion
of the appellate division reversing JUS
tlce Mccall said, after reviewing all the
facts connected with the alleged ante
uuptiai settlement, that as the only con-
sideration for the alleged transfer was
the marriage it is plain that II Mrs.
Tiffany already had a husband living at
the date OF the marriage. she could not
legally perform her part of the agree
ment and, therefore. the consideration
failed Therefore, all evidence tending
TO establish her inability TO marry should
have been admitted.
Also the court argues If the Rhode
Island divorce obtained 10y the first Mrs.
Tiffany was invalid. as il would seem t0
be on its face under the recent decisions
OF the Supreme Court in the Haddock
case. then Tiffany had no right to re-
marry. and was legally restrained from
attempting 10 carry out the agreement
Justices IngTaham. Clark. and Scott,
while agreeing in the decision of reversal
think that Tiffany's disability. If estab-
lished, would have simply placed him in
the situation Of a man who had broken "A
promise to marry, but who cannot neces-
sarily escape damages by proving dis
ability