Appellant All State Bail Bonds, Inc. (All State) challenges the jurisdiction of the district court to order All State to return to defendant Arnaiz the collateral and one-half of the premium paid to obtain a corporate surety bond. We reverse the district court’s order regarding the premium, but we affirm its jurisdiction to order the return of the collateral.

We begin with a brief statement of the facts. 1 In March of 1984, Arnaiz was indicted on a variety of federal drug charges. He obtained a $250,000 corporate surety bond from All State Bail Bonds, through its agent, Jerry Miller. On October 15, 1984, All State surrendered Arnaiz to the United States Marshal. A U.S. Magistrate relieved All State of its suretyship obligations, exonerating the bond and ordering All State to return to Arnaiz his collateral ($12,000). The magistrate’s order was affirmed by the district court on October 19.

On October 26, Arnaiz moved to recover the premium on the bond. All State failed to respond, and on November 16, the district court ordered All State to return half of the premium ($15,000). All State’s motion for reconsideration of the orders to return the collateral and premium was denied on March 15, 1985, and All State brought this appeal. 2

*219 On April 8, 1985, the district court granted All State’s motion for a stay pending appeal:

The district court revised this order two days later, specifying that the stay did not apply to the collateral posted by Arnaiz:

It is not disputed that the district court had jurisdiction to exonerate the bond upon All State's surrender of Arnaiz. 18 U.S.C. § 3149 ; Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 46. Thus, the issue presented to this court is a narrow one: did the district court have jurisdiction to order All State to return to Arnaiz all of the collateral and one-half the premium paid to obtain the exonerated bond? The issue appears to be one of first impression in the federal courts. The parties have directed us to a handful of cases, none of which directly addresses the precise issue presented here.

For reasons that will be discussed below, we agree with the district court that the collateral does not stand in the same position as the premium paid by Arnaiz. We will first address the question of the premium.

I

In determining whether the district court had jurisdiction, we must bear in mind the “fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 , 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2403 , 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978). “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” General Atomic Co. v. United Nuclear Corp., 655 F.2d 968, 968-69 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 948 , 102 S.Ct. 1449 , 71 L.Ed.2d 662 (1982). Conse quently, a district court only has such authority as has been “expressly or impliedly granted by an act of Congress.” Koch v. Zuieback, 316 F.2d 1, 3 (9th Cir.1963). 3

Here, the district court had jurisdiction over the criminal case under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 , and the district judge had power to conduct bail proceedings under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 and 3041. The bond was exonerated upon surrender of the defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 3149 and Rule 46(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 4 *220 None of these provisions expressly allows adjudication of a dispute regarding the bond premium. The question is whether such power can fairly be implied as necessarily ancillary to the exoneration of the bond. To answer this question, we must determine whether the premium dispute is so closely related to the purposes of the bail provisions that denial of jurisdiction would necessarily interfere with the district court’s ability to carry out its statutory mandate.

We find nothing to indicate that Congress intended to extend jurisdiction to a contractual dispute over the bond premium. The purpose of bail is to secure the presence of the defendant. United States v. Velez, 693 F.2d 1081, 1084 (11th Cir.1982); United States v. Parr, 594 F.2d 440, 442 (5th Cir.1979). This purpose is fulfilled by the surrender of the defendant as a condition of exoneration. The statutes speak only of the rights and obligations of the parties in connection with the appearance guarantee; however, the outcome of the premium dispute will have no effect on the defendant’s appearance in court.

On this point, we agree with the reasoning of the district court in United States v. Soucy, 60 F.Supp. 500 (D.Minn.1945). That case involved a dispute between two co-sureties on the bail bond of the defendant. The defendant failed to appear, and judgment on the forfeited bond was paid by one of the co-sureties, who then made a motion to recover contribution from the other surety. The district court held that it did not have jurisdiction:

60 F.Supp. at 503-04 . While Soucy was decided before the current bail provisions were enacted, we find nothing in the current provisions to change the result. We disagree with Arnaiz’ contention that Sou-cy should be distinguished as a dispute between co-sureties, rather than between the principal and a single surety; both disputes arose out of the bail contract, and neither is so intimately connected with the government’s object of securing the defendant’s appearance in court that it compels adjudication in a federal forum.

Nor can jurisdiction over the bond premium dispute be implied by Rule 46(e)(3). 5 Subdivision (e) expressly applies only to the liability of the surety where there has been a forfeiture of bail. Again, only the liability of the surety upon the appearance guarantee is implicated. Rule 46(e) cannot be read to make any contractual claim against a bail bondsman, no matter how unrelated to the appearance guarantee, enforceable on motion.

Finally, the district court’s order regarding the premium cannot be sustained under 28 U.S.C. § 1352 , which provides:

In the first place, Arnaiz did not bring an original action in the district court; instead, he made a motion for the refund following exoneration of the bond in his criminal case. Secondly, Arnaiz’ action to recover the premium would be barred under the case which concerned the district court here, Rader v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co., 242 F.2d 419 (2d Cir.1957). Rader involved a suit brought by indemni-tors against a surety in an effort to invalidate the indemnity agreement under which they agreed to reimburse the surety for its loss in connection with a forfeited bail bond. The Second Circuit held that the district court lacked jurisdiction, because a suit involving the indemnity agreement was not an action “on a bond” within the meaning of section 1352:

242 F.2d at 427 . We believe the holding in Rader would apply to bar Arnaiz’ claim here. A suit “on a bond” concerns only the beneficiary’s right to recovery against the surety, and the narrow inquiry whether the conditions of forfeiture have been established. In contrast, a suit by Arnaiz to recover his premium involves an inquiry into the contractual obligations of the principal and the surety under the surety agreement. As with the bail provisions discussed above, we do not believe that the statute provides a basis for implying jurisdiction over the latter claim. 6

II

The same considerations governing jurisdiction over the premium dispute control jurisdiction as to the order regarding the collateral. Specifically, the order can properly be considered to be within the district court’s jurisdiction if it was necessarily ancillary to the order exonerating the bond. We believe that the return of the collateral, unlike the return of the premium, was so inextricably linked with the exoneration order that it must be considered to be within the district court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3149 and Rule 46(f).

Rule 46(f) provides that when the conditions for exoneration are satisfied, the court “shall exonerate the obligors and release any bail” (emphasis added). The use of the plural term “obligors” is not insignificant; it is a recognition that frequently more than one party has posted security on behalf of the defendant and that all such parties are entitled to the return of their security. Here, the defendant posted $12,-000 as security against the risk of his nonappearance. That collateral stood in the same position as if it had been posted directly with the court; exoneration necessarily included the release of the collateral, because the defendant’s appearance obligation had been mooted by his surrender.

Our position is supported by cases in which courts have undertaken to adjudicate disputes over the proper disposition of collateral on exonerated appearance bonds. For example, in United States v. Parr, 594 *222 F.2d 440 (5th Cir.1979), the amount of defendant’s bond, $75,000, was deposited into the registry of the court by a third party, Manges. Manges, however, did not subscribe to the bond as a surety. After forfeiture of the bond, Parr’s estate contended that it was entitled to any remission and that Manges should be regarded only as an unsecured creditor of the estate. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court properly awarded the remission to Manges. 594 F.2d at 442-43 . 7 See also United States v. Bursey, 515 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir.1975) (defendant’s parents entitled to refund of cash deposit).

Although the Parr court did not explicitly consider the jurisdictional issue, it is clear that it regarded the return of the collateral as a necessary incident to the order of remission. There, as here, the court’s statutory duty of “releas[ing] any bail” could not be fulfilled without a determination of which party was entitled to receive it. Here, the court determined that $12,000 of the $250,000 bond was posted indirectly by Arnaiz as collateral. It was within the court’s jurisdiction to order that amount returned to Arnaiz upon the exoneration of the bond.

Ill

In conclusion, we affirm the district court’s order requiring All State to return Arnaiz’ collateral as within the district court’s jurisdiction. However, we conclude that the district court was without jurisdiction to order All State to return half of the premium paid by Arnaiz to obtain the bail bond, and accordingly, that order must be set aside. Nonetheless, we wish to emphasize that Arnaiz is not without remedy; he may bring a separate action for the return of his premium in state court, or in federal court if there is diversity jurisdiction. 8 We hold only that, unlike his entitlement to the collateral, his claim for a refund of the premium cannot be adjudicated in federal court as an adjunct to the exoneration of the surety bond.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.

. Arnaiz has moved to strike All State’s statement of facts as outside the record on appeal. As we find that the contested portion of the statement is irrelevant to the issue before us, we deny the motion.

. We have jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145 (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . The order appealed from finally adjudicates a matter collateral to and separable from the central case, and All State’s claim could not effec *219 tively be raised at a later stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the order is final within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 , 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225 , 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949); Cf. Carbo v. United States, 288 F.2d 282, 283 (9th Cir.1961) (appeal from order exonerating bond and remanding defendant to custody).

. By contrast, state trial courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Thus, decisions as to the powers of state courts in similar situations, see, e.g., Yording v. Walker, 683 P.2d 788 (Colo.1984), are inapplicable.

. 18 U.S.C. § 3149 provides: "A person charged with an offense, who is released upon the execution of an appearance bond with a surety, may be arrested by the surety, and if so arrested, shall be delivered promptly to a United States marshal and brought before a judicial officer. The judicial officer shall determine in accordance with the provisions of section 3148(b) whether to revoke the release of the person, and may absolve the surety of responsibility to pay all or part of the bond in accordance with the provisions of Rule 46 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The person so committed shall be held in official detention until released *220 pursuant to this chapter or another provision of law."

Rule 46(f) provides: "When the condition of the bond has been satisfied or the forfeiture thereof has been set aside or remitted, the court shall exonerate the obligors and release any bail. A surety may be exonerated by a deposit of cash in the amount of the bond or by a timely surrender of the defendant into custody.”

. Rule 46(e)(3) provides, in part: "By entering into a bond the obligors submit to the jurisdiction of the district court and irrevocably appoint the clerk of the court as their agent upon whom any papers affecting their liability may be served. Their liability may be enforced on motion without the necessity of an independent action.”

. The dissent argues that this case falls within the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction. Under the cases cited, however, the dispute must concern “property or assets actually or constructively drawn into the court’s possession or control by the principal suit.” Fulton Nat'l Bank v. Hozier, 267 U.S. 276, 280 , 45 S.Ct. 261, 262 , 69 L.Ed. 609 (1925) (emphasis supplied). To fit within this rule, the dissent asserts that “a bail bond is property in the possession of the federal court.” See dissenting opinion at 223-24. However, the dispute here is over the premium, which is not in the court's possession or control, but rather is in the possession and control of All State. In contrast, the collateral is at least constructively within the court’s possession or control. See infra at 221-22.

. The court held that title to the funds did not pass from Manges to Parr as a result of the transaction. The same is true with respect to the collateral here. In contrast, All State has a contractual claim to the premium which is not automatically divested by the exoneration.

. We express no view on the merits of his claim, that is, whether he is entitled to a refund as a matter of state contract law. See, e.g., Johnson v. Hicks, 288 Ark. 158, 702 S.W.2d 797, 798 (1986).