
    Harry A. Biossat, Defendant in Error, v. M. B. Louis and T. W. Brophy, Defendants, (Truman W. Brophy, Plaintiff in Error.)
    Gen. No. 17,642.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Bills and notes, § 445
      
      —when indorser on promissory note Haile to holder. In an action on a promissory note against an indorser thereon by the holder, where it appears that plaintiff procured the defendant to indorse the note by paying him five hundred dollars to pay off another note past due on which defendant was liable, and defendant claims as a defense that he is an accommodation indorser, that the note was to be returned to the maker after his indorsement and that he indorsed the note for plaintiff on the understanding he was agent of the maker, a judgment fo.r plaintiff on conflicting evidence and on finding of facts involved in propositions of law held as the law of the case, was sustained.
    
      Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Fbedebick L. Fake, Jb., Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1911.
    Affirmed.
    Rehearing allowed October 24, 1913.
    Opinion on rehearing filed December 31, 1913.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Harry A. Biossat against M. B. Louis and T. W. Brophy to recover on a promissory note executed by M. B. Louis payable to himself and indorsed by him and T. W. Brophy. Service of process was had on T. W. Brophy alone and trial was by the court without a jury. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff against Brophy for five hundred dollars, Brophy brings error.
    Patrick H. O’Donnell and D. P. Pennywitt, for plaintiff in error.
    Joseph L. McNab, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and ebbob, § 1236 —when plaintiff in error cannot shift his position. Plaintiff in error cannot urge grounds wholly at variance with the position assumed by him in the trial court. He cannot be permitted to shift his position in the court of review.  