
    JAMES B. BRADSHAW AND OTHERS v. JOHANNA HOFF.
    
    February 15, 1918.
    No. 20,709.
    Guaranty — question of execution for the jury.
    Action on guaranty. Defendant testified she did not sign it. Evidence of expert in handwriting that it and two admittedly genuine signatures were in the same handwriting. Judgment of dismissal. On appeal from the judgment, held that the evidence made the question of execution one for the jury. [Reporter.]
    Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $1,840.23 upon a written guaranty. The answer was a general denial. The case was tried before Ensign, J., who at the close of the testimony granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action. Plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial was denied. From the judgment of dismissal, plaintiffs appealed.
    Reversed.
    
      Courtney & Courtney, for appellants.
    
      John Heitmann, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 166 N. W. 329.
    
   Per Curiam.

In this action upon a written guaranty, defendant testified that she did not sign the instrument and never knew of its existence. Her daughter, whose debt purported to be guaranteed, testified that the signature was not her mother’s, and that she had never requested any one to sign the guaranty. Two Si.ííimens of defendant’s admittedly genuine signatures were received in evidence, and an expert in handwriting testified that in his opinion the three signatures were made by one and the same person. The trial court on defendant’s motion dismissed the ease, deeming the evidence insufficient to sustain a v.erdict, were one rendered for plaintiff. The appeal is from the judgment of dismissal. A majority of the court think the evidence such that the jury should have been .permitted to determine whether or not defendant executed the guaranty.

Judgment reversed.  