New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-03-28
A POSER FOR Us. CIRCUIT COURT.
QUESTION AS TO YACHTS OWNERSHIP
FIRST EVER RAISED THERE.

Yachtsmen invaded the United States Circuit
Court yesterday two actions being begun inVol'ihs
pleasure craft ownership. One Of the quesuons pre-
scented was without precedent in the United states
Circuit Court The suit of H. l. SIMPLY asdii.S'
r Hall Mccormack. of Chicago, was begun III lne
Supreme Court time ago. where the pIal'li'l
set forth that r. Hall Mccormack as owner Oh 'iie
yacht Rapdan. valued at $4,000 had charIeIeu II
to him from August % to october 81 I"I' io'
$500 that in the charter there was provision
that in case of loss the owner. Mccormack, was
repay the charter money to the plaintir OF such
portion : remained after deducting the rentdI up
to the date Of loss The Rapidan was lost on sep
TENDER 10. 1901. Shippy held that there was que
him $4.305 a.
Yesterday Mr. Mccormack in his answer de
clared that the Rapidan lost, on what Is
known the grave yard" off the Delaware
Capes. owing to the negligence OF the plaintiff
who" the answer AYERS, had no competent crew
master nor licensed pilot. nor proper lookout. me
defendant also asserts that the price paid Tor the
charter 81 500 and that the time was from Au-
gust l. September Is, with clause giving pam
tiff the privilege of renewal to October 81, 1871 Tor
5000 additional That the yacht was lost by the
plaintiffs negligence and the defendant therefore
sets up counterclam of $4,000 for the loss OF the
vessel.
The other action was to clear the title to the
schooner yacht Ellesmere, wherein l.among NJ
Burnham is plaintiff and John T. Mccartney ana
!. A McEIroy of Glasgow and London respeGtyg ~
Williams and George r. Bidwel Collector of the
Port of New-Nork, are defendants.
According to the complaint, in 1898, the EileSmere
was the property of Ferdinand McKeize, who gave
a MORTGAGE on the yacht to Frank Mamie Tor SIV".
Later the owner executed two additional MORTGAGES
Mccartney and McElroy for $l,92l ana the other
to the Excelsior Company for T,62l. In MarCh.
1870. Mamie forcClosed his mortgage ana had me
yacht sold buying il in himself for Soz3 Mamie
then sold the craft +. !. Iisnan. VINO IN turn
disposed of il Burnham. the present owner AFTER
the foreclosure, under the admiralty law &C
CordinC to the complaint the other two mortgages
became void but the holders OF the second and
third mortgages have refused to cancel their claim
Mr.. Durham calls the attention OF the court to
tho fact that there Is power or law by which
he can clear the title to The yacht ny which the
Collector II the Port cancel the mort gages.
T!o asks The direct the defendants 70 give
him LarGes of the mortgages and mat II they
should refuse to do that the court direct the
Collector of the Port to discharge them from the
records.
Lawyers a. that the point involved in the latter
action is 4 vowel one. and that despite the fact
that about all the legal points under the sun have
been raised from time time In the United states
courts, there appears to be no precedent 10 guide
either tho lawyers in THIS as II is the
hrst time that such a question has been raised in
the United States courts.