DAILY V. DOE. 921 �son of aaiy irregularity shown, a nuUity for want of jurîsdîction or for want of power in the court to order the sale of the ves- sel. Wàile the owner had not, in fact, such opportunity or chance of receiving actual notice as the court always designs to give, he had what the law pronounces sufficient construc- tive notice to make the decree operative upon the property itself. Fortunately, in the present, case no actual injustice appears to have been done by his failure to reçoive actual notice. The proof is that the boat was of less value than the liens, to satisfy which she was sold, and they were claims paramount to his title. If this is so, the only right he has lost was that oî redeeming her from liens exceeding her value. It is of the utmost importance to raaintain to its full extent, 60 far as is consistent with justice and the acknowledged rules of law, the absolute validity of titles to vessels made undor decrees of admiralty courts. Unless this is done, property in ships must be seriously impaired. In many cases, un- doubtedly, where the rules of the court as to publication of notice are fally complied with, especially in the case of for- eign ships, the owners have and can have no actual notice of the proeeedings, or of the sale, nor any notice except such as is implied in the notice given by the seizure to those to whom they have entrusted the possession of the ship. The publi- cation, in fact, does not and cannot, on account of their re- moteness, reach them. Yet the powers of condemnation and sale, to satisfy maritime liens, given to courts of admiralty, and the prompt hearing and determination of such claims, which interrupt and prevent the use of the ship for the pur- pose for which she was designed, without waiting for actual notice to every party in interest, are but parts of that System of admiralty jurisdiction which is based upon and has grown out of the necessities and interests of commerce, and its uni- versality throughout the civilized world is sufficient proof of its necessity and substantial justice. �The libellant is, therefore, entitled to a decree for the pos- session of the vessel. He also seeks in the same suit to es- tablish a lien against the cargo for any unpaid freight money due from the shippers of the cargo to the respondent Susau ����
