Case Name: Thomasina Adorff, Respondent, v. Albert Bechter and Harriet Bechter, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-01
Citations: 70 Misc. 219
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomasina Adorff, Respondent, v. Albert Bechter and Harriet Bechter, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 219–220

Head Matter:
Thomasina Adorff, Respondent, v. Albert Bechter and Harriet Bechter, Appellants.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
January, 1911.)
Municipal Courts — Procedure — Execution — Against the person — Nature of action as determining right — Nature of action, how determined.
Where, in an action brought in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, the pleadings are oral, resort must be had to the testimony rather than to the exact language of the complaint to determine the nature of the action.
In such case, though the complaint was “ conversion ” but the testimony showed merely a breach of contract, the action will be deemed an action on contract and a judgment in contract will be sustained.
Appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, eighth district, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.
Peacock & Steves (George A. Steves, of counsel), for appellants.
Baker & Hyman, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
Judgment affirmed, with costs.