BATCE V. STEAM-BOAT BOSTON. 811 �seîzure precedes the commencement of judieial proceedings. The Lewellen, 4 Biss. 156, 162 ; Benedict's Adm. § 301. But I am of opinion that this general rule is not applicable tb this case. How a private person, proposing to sue for the penal- ties imposed by section 4465, could exercise the right of seizure, I am at a loss to see. Nor can I perceive by what authority he could càll upon a government officiai to make Buch seizure. In a word, I find no statutory provision authorizing a summary seizure of a vessel for a violation of section 4465. What, then, is the remedy to enforce the lien imposed upon the vessel by section 4469? Clearly, as it seems to me, the one here adopted, viz., the ordinary pro- ceeding in rem, in the admiralty. Wherever there is a mar- itime lien it may be enforced in the admiralty. It confera upon its holder such a right in the thing that he may subject it to condemnation and sale to satisfy his claim. The Rock Island Bridge, supra. "The lien and the proceeding in rem are, therefore, correlative — where one exists the other may be taken." Id. �6. Advantage is sought to be taken of a mistake of the clerk in docketing the case on the civil docket of the court, as if it were a common-law action. But this the clerk did of his own motion, without aûy direction from the proctors of the libellant. This clerical error cannot oust the rightful juris- diction of this court, sitting in admiralty. An order wiU be made rectifying the mistake. �The foregoing remarks dispose of ail the objections raised •which can properly be considered at this stage of the case. Whether or not the verdict and judgment in the action of debt conclude the present owners upon the question of the viola- tion of section 4465, it is not necessary now to consider. For the present it is sufficient to decide that no good reason bas been shown for dismissing the libel; and therefore the motion is overruled. NoTB.— See Pallock v. Sieam-'Boai Sea Bird, ante, 5Ï.T ����
