
    EQUITABLE QUESTIONS IN AN ACTION FOR. MONEY.
    LCircuit Court of Hamilton County.]
    Heintz et al, Receivers, v. Anthony et al.
    Decided, July 28, 1904.
    
      Action for Recovery of Money Judgment — Incidental Equitable Questions — Right of Trial to a Jury — Right of Appeal.
    
    Where the main issue is the right of the plaintiff to a money judgment, either party is entitled to a jury; and the character of the action is not changed by the fact that there are incidental equitable questions between other parties.
    Jelke, P. J.; Swing, J., and Gieeen, J., concur.
   We are of opinion that the main issues in the court below, especially that between Michie and Symmes and Edwards, and that between Michie and Symmes and Olmsted Bros., were purely issues for money only, and as to those issues either party was entitled to a jury. The judgment on these issues is the one particularly appealed from. The fact that there were other incidental equitable questions between other parties does not change the character of the action, where the principal relief sought is a money judgment. Warner v. Jaeger, 5 C. C., 16; Pratt v. Insurance Co., 5 C. C., 587; Lockland Lumber Co. v. Marsh, 16 C. C., 432.

C. W. Balcer and Miller Outcalt, for plaintiffs.

Rogers Wright, Thomas Bentham and A. C. Shattuclc, for defendants.

The appeal herein is prosecuted by Messrs. Symmes and Michie, who lost below on issues triable to a jury. The appeal should be dismissed.  