Western-Southern Life Ins. Co. adv. Iliff-First Circuit, Hamil ton Co....... .' 426 Wheeler adv. Colver-Sixth Circuit, Erie Co.. 608 W., L. E. & P. Coal Co. adv. First National Bank of Smithfield 412 Wickenden adv. T. & O. C. R.R. Co.-Sixth Circuit, Lucas Co. 379 18 238 591 559 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF OHIO. (Sixth Circuit-Lucas Co., O., Circuit Court-Sept. Term, 1895.) Before Haynes, Scribner and King, JJ. ANNA MEISSNER v. ADAM MEISSNER. Alimony-Modification of decree -Petition for, to be filed in common pleas court, and not in appellate court.-It seems to be the established doctrine in Ohio that so far as a decree of alimony is concerned, the courts have power, not to change the original order upon the facts that existed at the time the order was made, but to modify it upon any changed conditions occurring after the original decree, which would authorize the court to interfere. And where the decree was on appeal entered in the circuit court, and a mandate was issued to the court of common pleas to carry that decree into effect, the Court is inclined to the opinion that such appellate court has no continuing jurisdiction, but the defendant ought to file his petition for a modification in the court of common pleas, make the proper parties, and have the case heard there. Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County. Mrs. Anna Meissner filed a petition for divorce and alimony against Adam Meissner in the court of common pleas, and a divorce was granted and alimony was allowed, and thereupon the defendant, Adam Meissner appealed to the circuit court upon the question of alimony. The matter came up in the circuit court upon application for alimony pendente lite, and alimony was allowed. Afterwards a final judgment entry was made by consent of the parties, which was substantially the same entry as that made in regard to alimony by the court of common pleas. The substance of it VOL. XI-1* (Copyrighted.) Anna Meissner v. Adam Meissner. was that the plaintiff was to have allowed her $1500 in alimony, payable in installments at certain times. Subsequently Anna Meissner died, leaving a portion of the alimony unpaid, and it is claimed that she has assigned that alimony to her daughter, Emma Bergman. Now the defendant, Adam Meissner, comes into court by his attorney, and moves to redocket the case, and to have Emma Bergman made a party to the suit, to the end that he may have modification of the original decree. The motion reads: "Now comes the defendant, by James E. Pilliod, his attorney, and moves the court for leave to file a supplemental answer and cross-petition in said cause, and to make one Emma Bergman party to said cause.' The motion brings up an interesting question of practice. We have heard counsel upon the subject, and we have ourselves given the matter quite full attention. Counsel for the motion cited several cases in Ohio in regard to the rights of the parties, to-wit: 15 Ohio St. 427; 28 Ohio St. 596; 43 Ohio St. 499; 45 Ohio St. 462; 38 Ohio St. 370; and it seems to be the established doctrine in this state, that so far as a decree of alimony is concerned, the courts have power, not to change the original order upon the facts that existed at the time the order was made, but to modify it upon any changed conditions occurring after the original decree, which would authorize the court to interfere. The query is, how shall the question be raised. In this case the decree was entered here, and a mandate was issued to the court of common pleas to carry that decree into effect. Counsel for plain tiff assumes that this matter is one in which this court has a continuing jurisdiction, and that he has a right to come in by motion, and ask to have the case reinstated, and a right to file his answer or cross-petition in this court, to have this court modify its original decree. On the other hand, it is contended that if any action can be taken, it must be by a pleading filed in the court of common pleas—an original |