necessary,  as  the  first  step,  to  decide  whether  the  libellant  held
in  trnst  or  not,  the  Court  had  no  jurisdiction.  The  case  at
bar  goes  much  beyond  that ;  for  here,  not  only  must  the  ex-
istence of  the  trust  be  tried,  but  its  subject-matter,  the  pro-
ceeds of  a  sale  of  a  vessel,  are  not  subjects  of  admiralty  juris-
diction. It  was  urged  that  if  admiralty  had  jurisdiction  to
try  the  title  to  the  vessel  and  to  decree  possession  to  the  libel-
lant, it  would  follow  the  proceeds  and  work  out  his  rights  in
reference  to  them ;  and  the  case  of  Shepherd  v.  Tayhr^  5  Pet.
B.  675,  was  relied  on  as  sanctioning  this  doctrine.  But  that
case  decides  only  that  if  a  maritime  lien,  which  can  be  en-
forced in  admiralty,  exists  upon  a  vessel,  the  same  lien  may,
under  some  circumstances,  attach  upon  the  proceeds;  and  if
it  does  so  attach,  it  may  be  enforced  in  the  admiralty,  (see
Cutler  v.  R<ie<i  7  How.  729).  But  a  part  owntr  has  no  mari-
time lieu  on  his  own  property,  and  of  course  can  have  none
on  its  proceeds.
