It is the position of plaintiff in error that 10859 GC, confers the right of appeal, inasmuch as the order attempted to be appealed from pertains to an order of distribution.

That Section when it was Section 6203, Revised Statutes, has been construed and applied by the Supreme Court of Ohio, at pages 701 and following of volume 50 OS. Reports, where it is held that the right of appeal can have no relation to “orders, judgments and decrees” other than those authorized by the act of which 10859 GC, was a part.

That act provides for the enforcement of an order of distribution resulting from the settlement of an account of an exe *254 cutor, administrator or guardian. The fund in issue herein, did not result from an order of distribution. Indeed, such a fund has been held to be no part of the estate of the person on account of whose death the fund arose. 28 OS. 190 55 OS. 517.

The act nowhere mentioned a fund arising under a statute like 10770 GC, and contains no other language evincing an intention to make any of its provisions, applicable to the disbursement of such a fund.

It is not claimed by counsel for plaintiff in error that 11206 GC, which is the statute providing in general for appeals to the court of common pleas from the probate court, authorized the appeal, but we have carefully studied that Section and find that it does make the order appeal-able. No other statute makes provision for the appeal, and consequently the court of common pleas rightly decided the motion to dismiss it.