New-York tribune., 1922-05-05
S. ]. Colford .Jr.
And Wife Sued
In Stock Deal
Brokers Bring Action for
$500 Said To Be Due
on S23.804 Debt Bound
bv InstalIment Contract
Mrs. ColfOrd Is Cuarantor
"Mere Favor Says Former
Mrs. II. Vanderbilt: Hus.
bands Income $4,000

Sydney j. Colford jr. and his wife,
Mrs. Cathleen n. Colford. who for
merly was Mrs. Reginald Vanderbilt,
are being sued in the supreme Court
by Wright, Slade & Co, members of
the Stock Exchange, for $500, which
the brokers allcge is due on account
Of an acknowledged debt OF $23 ,S94
Mrs. Colford appears as a defendant
IN the action s guarantor of a CON
tract entered into between the firm
and Mr. Colford. under which the lat
ter was to liquidate the alleged in
debtedness in installments of $500
month. The suit is brought to re-
cover seven of these installmcnts now
said to he due.
Included in the court papers is a
quotation from communication which
1t IS alleged Mrs. Colford sent to The
brokers in which sne wrote: "This let
ter is further guarantee that there
VIII be no failure on mis- part to live
up to his contracts"
Guaranty Mere Favor" She Saws
in her answer to the action Mrs.
toIford makes several separate de-
lenses, one of these being that her
guaranty was written and delivered
to the plaintiffs as mere favor to
enable them to cover the indebtedness
before the Stock Exchange authorities
and was made without consideration.
MRS. Co!tord also said that for many
years her husband had transactions
with the defendant firm. or certain
members of 1t. which involved com
missions of more than 100000. The
plaintiffs, said Mrs. Colford, had hecn
informed by her and by her husband as
we'll as by members Of his family, of
the exact financial status of Mr.. Col
ford, and that Wright. Slade & Co. had
been repeatedly warned not to permit
hlm to run behind in his margins and
into debt. Mrs. Colford added that the
brokers also were advised that neitber
she nor the family of Mr. Colford would
he responsible for any future indebted
ness and that the only money available
was the income from certain trust
fund received by Mr.. Coford from
which 200 year could be collected.
Under earnishee order in case Of
a judgment which is not paid. the
pdaintlfs would be entitled to collect
~ per cent of Mr.. Colford's income.
90 "hen his wife says thar his in
come would yield only $1,000 wear
to the brokers if tnev tried to coi1ec.
the alleged indebtedness that wav she
means that Mr.. Colford's income is
$4,000 year.
'.S '''"NiS NNnouHCcQ contract
Mrs. Colford further said in her do
tense that upon the inability Of her
self and her husband to make certain
payments under the installment con.
tract the brokers renouced the CON
tract refused to be bound By it, and
demanded payment or collateral Sc
curlty tor the full amount alleged
due; "that defendants acuuiesccd IN
an agreed to that remuneration. OK.
pended much labor and time in un
successful endeavors to procure the
money or securities demanded"
In view Of this demand by the
brokers for the full amount, Mrs. Col
tord asks that the contract for the
settlement by instalments be rescind-
cd and that the plaintiffs be estopped
from roasserting it.
Less than a month ago Mrs. Colford
hled Supreme Court action for an
order directing the Board of Taxes
ana Assessments to vacate an assess
ment OF S23,20O for personal taxes for
1919. This assment was on an esti
mated personal property of 81 ,0Oo.O 900.
Mrs. Coltorv said that in the period
Tor which the assessment was levied
she was Mrs. Vanderbilt and that her
residence at the time was in Newnort
r. /. Her only property here at the
tune. she said. consisted of some old
clothes, books and furniture of no
substantial value, and she had in the
National City Bank $3,246.