
    Austin T. Reed v. Mary E. Reed.
    Where a petition for alimony is dismissed on a final hearing in the common pleas upon the merits, the case is not appealable to the district court, under section 17 of the “ act concerning divorce and alimony.”
    Error to the district court of Summit county.
    March 30, 1866, Mary E. Eeed filed in the court of common pleas of Summit county, a petition against Austin T. Eeed for alimony. At the May term, 1867, the case was tried, and the petition dismissed. The case was taken to the district court by appeal; and, at the September term of that court, the plaintiff in error filed a motion to dismiss the case, for want of jurisdiction, in the district court. The defendant in error also, at the same time, filed a motion for the allowance of alimony pending the suit. The motion to dismiss the case was not disposed of by the court; but an order was made that the case be continued, and that the defendant in error recover of the plaintiff in error the sum of one hundred dollars as alimony pendente lite.
    
    This petition in error is. prosecuted to reverse the judgment of the district court, on the ground that the case was not ap*pealable, and for want of jurisdiction in the court to render the judgment.
    
      McKinney & Tibbals, for plaintiff in error.
    
      McClure & Oviatt, for defendant in error.
   By the Court.

There was no authority for the appeal of this case, unless it be found in the 17th section of the act concerning: divorce and alimony.” S. & C. Stat. 515.

Under the construction given to that section in Price v. Price, (10 Ohio St. 316), this case “ is clearly excepted from its provisions ” authorizing appeals.

The district court, therefore, had no jurisdiction of the case, and the judgment rendered by it must be reversed.  