MR. JUSTICE BURKE delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiff appeals from an order entered on July 5, 1961, the second paragraph of which states that "no ruling is herein entered as to arrears in child support or attorney fees." One of the points made by plaintiff is that the court erred in refusing to enter judgment for defendant's arrearages. The defendant asserts that the order is not appealable because claims for relief remain for disposition and the court has not found that there is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal. Plaintiff calls attention to the colloquy between the chancellor and counsel to support her position that the court adjudicated all of the claims. It is doubtful that this colloquy may be considered in deciding what the order means to say. In our opinion the statements by the chancellor and the lawyers show that the court did not intend to adjudicate all of the claims. To rule is to decide. The plain meaning of the statement that the court was making "no ruling" is that the court was not deciding "as to arrears in child support and attorney fees." We conclude that under the provisions of Sec 50(2) of the Civil Practice Act it is our duty to dismiss the appeal. Peterson v. Gwin, 17 Ill.2d 261, 161 N.E.2d 123; Hanley v. Hanley, 13 Ill.2d 209, 148 N.E.2d 792; Smith v. Hodge, 13 Ill.2d 197, 148 N.E.2d 793; Ariola v. Nigro, 13 Ill.2d 200, 148 N.E.2d 787; Simon v. Simon, 37 Ill. App.2d 100, 185 N.E.2d 111; Barrow v. Robinson, 28 Ill. App.2d 358, 171 N.E.2d 663; Cannon v. Thompson, 28 Ill. App.2d 69, 170 N.E.2d 174; Brenner v. Neu, 26 Ill. App.2d 319, 168 N.E.2d 449; Johnson v. City of Rockford, 26 Ill. App.2d 133, 169 N.E.2d 534; Henson v. Renshaw, 25 Ill. App.2d 178, 166 N.E.2d 166; Brodsky v. Brodsky, 20 Ill. App.2d 587, 156 N.E.2d 608; Hawthorn-Melody Farms Dairy, Inc., etc. v. Elgin, J. E. Ry. Co., 18 Ill. App.2d 154, 151 N.E.2d 393. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
BRYANT, P.J. and FRIEND, J., concur.