Detroit evening times. (Detroit, Mich) 1921-1958, 1943-06-20
Wh0GetsWhat
Heterogeneous
AreBr0ken?

utNE1 is the month Of brides and weddings Though
ages said to be made in Heaven It IS fact that
they often to naught even after the preacher -
picked and the time and place fixed When the wedding
invitations recalled and the bride and bridegroom
agree go their separate ways who is entitled 70 the
engagement ring? Surprising the disappointed BRIDE re-
fuses 70 return it and the atc bridegroom demands 1t
back he done without IL
He Marriaec whatever ccstatlc bride may
think OF H. IN law just another contract An engagement
ring legally conditional gift something
given as a pledge or earnest money 60 bind tho
The circumstances under winch engagement rings
given and accepted IS ''a marriage vii take place II
only when the preacher rronopHcrs tho couple man and
that complete title ownership Of the ring passes
the bctrotlcd on vEfc ana NOT uutl then.
If the engagement was ended ty n4utla consent tho
disappointed brdc.tobe tho ring. II Of The
parties says no" TO the marriage the other being willing
it depends upon who at fault II It with tho
bride then the law she must restore the ring II the
to blame she may keep it.
A New York appeals court recently wordcd the law
tho subject thus: Though the origin az the engagement
ring has been forgotten II still retains its character Of
pledge something to bind the bargain contract 10
marry and it given the understanding that pCry
who breaks the contract must return It. such ring IS
symbol hallowed by social usage That it is conditional
gift seems inherent in It's very purpose Possession should
be retained during tho engagement, which syuholizes
and changed firm ownership upon marriage"
The Court OF Appeals Of Kentucky recently TO
the conclusion action brought by Clara Duitz
20 retain engagement ring which her hance had taken
from her after he broke the engagement without usca
ton.
Clara had been aGanccd to one Carl Schultz for two
years when he told her tho whole thing of Shortly
thereafter they Oldham County 90 hunt squirrels
and talk the matter While sitting under Clara
took the ring a diamond ring $500
whcrcupon Carl took his pocket and refused
TO give it back.
Both in the lower cou,, and IN appeal it was held that
tho aGgrievcd bride entitled to tho ring Carl had
preached his agreement 20 marry 'reI' justification And
Carl had given the ring token ~ horothal 70
other maiden IN" court held DO would have 10 pay Clara
its value m cash.
Not ouIv rings must be- returned SO the law saws hu.
anything given consideration marriage. such money
buy trosseau, furniture and Whan0t except outright
J,Ty, l.rre4r l,IY4tl
presents
Consider Charles williamson The hopeful sl5tor from
Vermont. He had taken trip 70 Minneapolis and There
smittcn with the charms Of Caroline Johnson They
became engaged and while Charles had 20 back TO
agreed that Caroline would follow shortly
thereafter year passed and Caroline faed 20 show up
To overcome some reluctance Caroline showed her
letters $500 buy wardrobc Of clothes,
But Caroline was still hcsaut Charles waited for another
year her 500 for fs and ngdcnals and asked her
TO reconsider
Caroline did reconsider. she married another man.
Charles sued the value everything he had
given her and the court held that since she showed no valid
for breaking tho engagement She had 20 pay
In New York city short time ago court castlgatcd
young lady the extremely mcrCcuarv spirit she
showed her fancc. She had clipped the young man Of
thousands dollars, telling him that she buying
furniture for their future home When she had accum-
lated enough money 10 fiji she turned around
married sotonc else The court held that she had
to account for CI3ry nickel
An interesting situation develops when a has had
his heart and she then breaks the engage
mont law anyone under the age Of 21 although in
it is IS is regarded infant who cannot
make contract or be sued for damages on one therefore
young lady under legal age has the right TO break any
agreement What about the engagement ring?
The is that if the sutton prove it IS in her
possession he may bring action 20 recover it. But If
she's disposed Of it he's ont OF luck.
This point involved in q case in Philadelphia a few
years ago. gentleman plightcd his troth 10 young
lady years old and gave her nnc point diamond ring
valued AT 81 400 Two months later the young lady wanted
no part OF her intended He sued for the ring She said
that she had The Superior Court Of Pennsylvania
cxcoriatcd her but said 1t could do nothing