
    Western Boatmen's Benevolent Association, Respondent, v. George C. Wolff, Appellant.
    1. Promissory note — Indorsement — Proof of demand — Character of in-dorsement, question for jury.— Prima facie, a party who writes his name on the back of a promissory note, of which he is neither payee nor indorsee, is to be treated as the maker of the note, and the payee is entitled to recover of him, without proof of demand on the maker and notice of non-payment. The question in what character he put his name on the back of the note was, in case of suit against him on the note, one of fact, exclusively for the jury.
    
      
      Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court..
    
    This suit was brought on a note made by one Hugh Davis to tbe order of respondent, and the defendant wrote his name on the back of the note, of which he was neither payee nor indorsee.
    
      Colvin & Higdon, for appellant.
    While the appellant is prima fade a co-maker, it is competent to show by parol evidence that the signature was affixed only as indorser. (Powell v. Thomas, 7 Mo. 492 ; Lewis v. Harvey, 18 Mo. 74; Perry v. Barrett, id. 140 ; Baker v. Block, 30 Mo. 225.)
    
      Garesche & Mead, for respondent.
    Appellant having written his name on the back of the note, of which he was neither payee nor indorsee, is to be treated as a maker of the note. (Lewis et al. v. Harvey, 18 Mo. 74 ; Baker v. Block, 30 Mo. 225.)
   Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Prima facie, a party who writes his name on the back of a promissory note, of which he is neither payee nor indorsee, is to be treated as a maker of the note, and the payee is entitled to recover of him without proof of demand on the maker and notice of non-payment. (Powell v. Thomas, 7 Mo. 440; Hooper v. Pritchard, id. 492; Lewis v. Harvey, 18 Mo. 74; Baker v. Block, 30 Mo. 225.) The note was presumptive evidence of the defendant’s undertaking as a maker, and he introduced himself as a witness, and gave evidence tending to show that he placed his name on the back of the note as indorser, and not as maker. The trial was before the court, and no instructions were asked for or given by either party. There is no point of law saved which this court can pass upon.

In what character the defendant put his name on the back of the note, was a question of fact within the exclusive province of the trial court to determine, and we will not undertake to weigh the evidence. The verdict and judgment, therefore, can not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

The other judges concur.  