This court is of the clear opinion that the main object of the actions was to recover judgments in the amounts which the de- • fendant was averred to have promised -to pay to the plaintiffs, and that the prayer that a trust be fastened upon the property equal to the amount which the defendant was to pay is a mere incident to the main object of the actions, to-wit: 'the recovery of personal judgments. We think the, rule is well settled in Ohio that where the equity side of the case is merely incidental to the issue of law, the case is not one in equity and therefore not appealable.

See 2 Ohio Jurisprudence, 166 to 169. See also Gowdy v Roberts, 31 Oh Ap, 33 and Toledo Pulp Plaster Co v Long, et al, 10 Oh Ap, 442.

The general finding and judgment for the defendant includes in law a finding and judgment that the- defendant did not make the promise to pay and that the plaintiff's were not entitled to recover judgments for the several amounts.

For the reasons given the motion to dismiss the appeal will be granted in each caso.