DiECiY V. DOB. 919 �•Buch publication as an absolutely essential prerequisîte, eitlier to the assumption of jurisdiction or to the exercise of the power of the court to condemn and sell the vessel to satisfy a maritime lien. They are precautionary measures, of the greatest value and importance as such, to prevent possible injustice, and to secure, as far as is consistent with the speedy action of the court in hearing and determining the cause, an actual notice to the parties who have already, by the seizure, conatructive notice of the proceedings. And the publication -of the notice of sale undoubtedly bas the further object of securing a fair price upon the sale. But the disregard of the rules in this respect, in whole or in part, through mistake or inadvertence, while it may furnish a most eonclusive ground for opening a decree, or, perhaps, for reversing it on appeal, is simply error or irregularity. It does not make the pro- ceedings nuU and void, or the less binding on all the world. The rules in admiralty prescribed by the supreme court arô obligatory upon this court, and one of those rules (rule 9) requires notice to be given in a newspaper of every seizure in cases in rem. But the rules, though obligatory, are obli- gatory only as rules of practice. Their non-observance is only error, for which the remedy is by appeal, or on applica- tion for opening the decree. See Ex parte Povitney, 12 Pet. 472, 473; also, Fraser v. Prather, 1 MacArthur, 206, 215. �The monition was served on the canal-boat A. Noxon. That the boat which is the subject-matter of this suit was the same boat which the marshal seized, and on which, according to the practice of the court, he posted, or left with the person in charge of her, a notice of the seizure, the cause, and the time for parties to appear, and that he maîntained his seizure by an open and notorious possession, does not admit of doubt. This was notice to the master and to all the world, espeeially to those who put the master in charge of the boat to protect their interest, of the fact of the filing of the libel, the seizure, and the day of appearance. On that day no one appeared except the person or persons, whoever they were, who ap- peared through Mr. Walker. It is said there is nothing to show that there was the usual proclamation made, and that ����
