Case ID: misc_56/html/0504-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alexander Nyman et al., Respondents, v. William Diamond et al., Appellants.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    November, 1907.)
    Municipal Courts:. Procedure — Judgment — Where defendant is subject to arrest and imprisonment; Review — Abatement and dismissal.
    Where, on an appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court » of the city of New York in an action for conversion, the defendants concede their liability for the amount claimed but contend they are not liable for conversion, and it appeal's that only a money judgment was rendered which does not contain the statement required by section 251 of the Municipal Court Act to authorize an execution against the person, the appeal will be dismissed.
    Appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fifth district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiffs.
    David W. Roekmore, for appellants.
    Hugart F. Norman, for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The cause of action is conversion. The defendants concede liability for the amount of the plaintiffs’ claim, but contend that they are not liable for conversion. On this appeal the only ground upon which a reversal is asked is that, under the judgment as rendered, the defendants are subject to arrest under an execution against the person, Both counsel have treated the judgment as one ex delicto. It appears, however, that only a money judgment was rendered and, under its terms, no body execution could issue for the reason that it does not contain the statement required by section 251 of the Municipal Court Act.

It follows that the appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

Present: Gildebsleeve, Leventeitt and Eblangeb, JJ.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.