920 FEDERAIi EEPORTJSR. �no default of all who did not appear was eutered. If so, there was a departnre from the usual practice of the court. But every intendment, not inconsistent with the record, must be indulged to support the decree and the purchas«r'a title. The record does not show that a proclamation was not made, nor that a default was not taken. It may have been done and the clerk may have failed to note it. But if these for- malities were not observed, it is not perceived that the failure was anything more than error or irregularity. The substan- tial consideration is that the owners had constructive notice, and did not appear to defend their right. The court then had before it the fact that the vessel had bcen seized and held by the marshal, under his process, until its return day; that the process was duly served on the vessel itself, and that the only parties wh6 appeared as ciaimants consentsd to a decree of condemnation and sale. Whoever it waa whi- appeared by Mr. Walker had not made himself properly a claimant, since he had filed no sworn claim stating that he alone was the owner, nor given security for costs. His ap- pearance might have been struck out on motion, and perhaps his consent was not necessary to the validity of a decree ; but it was proper to have his consent, as appears to have been done. The circumstance that the decree recites the consent and does not recite the default of all other parties, is immaterial, ail other parties being in fact in default by not appearing. The omission is a merely formai defect, whieh could be amended or entirely disregarded. The allegations of fraud contained in the answer are not sustained by the proofs. Murtagh, the libellant, had an equal right with all other per- Bons to become a bidder and purchaser at the sale. The only difference that can be suggested between his position in that respect and that of any other person is that, being a party to the suit, he might be more directly chargeable with knowledge of circumstances, if there were any, in the course of the proceedings, indicating fraud. But there is no proof of fraud on his part. �Upon the whole case it must be held that however irregular and erroneouB the decree may have been, it was not, by rea- ����
