
    BANTON v. TORREY.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    October 25, 1899.)
    1. Arbest m Civil Cases.
    Under Consol. Act, § 1386, providing that a judgment must show that a defendant can be arrested and imprisoned before such penalty can be inflicted, defendant is not prejudiced where the judgment contains nothing to show that he is subject to arrest or imprisonment.
    3. Appeal—Affirmance.
    Where action is brought on a debt which is admitted for the amount for which judgment is rendered, and there is no exception presenting a question of law calling for reversal, the judgment will be affirmed.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Ninth district.
    Action by Joab H. Banton against David M. Torrey. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before FBEEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEVEN-TBITT, JJ.
    
      Henry Oooper, for appellant.
    Francis M. Applegate, for respondent.
   FREEDMAN, P. J.

The judgment appealed from contains nothing to show that the defendant is subject to arrest and imprisonment, and without such adjudication he cannot be arrested and imprisoned; Section 1386, Consol. Act. The appellant, therefore, is not prejudiced by the omission.

Moreover, the case having apparently been tried upon oral pleadings, to determine defendant’s indebtedness, and the defendant having admitted his indebtedness to the plaintiff in the amount for which judgment was rendered against him, and no exception appearing in the case which presents a question of law calling for reversal, the judgment represents substantial justice, and for that reason it should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.  