826 FEDERAL REPORTER. �a relation of quasi partnership as woi;ld be sufficient to give rise to a lien. But this question it is not necessary now to decide, nor the further question whether if the lien exists it could be enfofced by an original proceeding in the admiralty. See The Larch, ubi supra; The Young Mechanic, 2 Curtis, 404 ; Kellum V. Emerson, Id. 79, The vessel in question in thia case was a small craft owned in this state and employed exclusively in the navigation of its interior waters. Section 3055 of the California Civil Code provides that "the master of a ship has a general lien, independent of possession, upon the ship and freightage for advances necessarily made, or liabilities necessarily incurred, by him for the benefit of the Bhip, but has no lien for his wages." �Whether the lien thus created is a strictly maritime lien, and capable of being enforced by a direct proceeding in rem in the admiralty, is not material now to inquire or decide. The present proceeding is against surplus proceeds in the registry. The duty of ascertaining to whom they belong de- volves upon the court, as a necessary incident to the jurisdie- tion it incontestably possessed, to decree a sale to satisfy maritime liens, and the objection that the admiralty has no jurisdiction over matters of account, whatever be its force ■where an original suit is brought to enforce a lien not strictly maritime, and, therefore, "not peculiarly within the jurisdic- tion of a court of admiralty," has no application to a case like the present, where the court is obliged to determine to •whieh of two opposing claimants a fund in its possession should be paid. �My opinion is that the petitioner, as master of the ship had, under the state law, a lien upon her for his advances incurred for her benefit ; that that lien attaches to her surplus proceeda remaining in the registry, and that, as between him and the representative of the other part owner, he is entitled to ba paid out of the proceeds. �It appears by the commissioner's report that, on account- ing and settlement between the petitioner and his co-owner, there was found to be due him $371.88. ����
