
    Julius C. Joyslin vs. George E. Kent and others.
    October 26, 1891.
    Promissory Wote — Indorsement by Third Person after Delivery.— Evidence held sufficient to .support a finding of fact upon an issue whether certain defendants indorsed the note in suit before or after its delivery to the payee.
    Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, refusing a new trial after a trial by the court and judgment ordered for defendants Miller and Tripp, sued as joint makers with, defendant Kent on a promissory note for $300.
    
      J. E. Waters, for appellant.
    
      R. A. Daly, for respondents.
   Vanderburgh, J.

The defendants Miller and Tripp, whose names; are indorsed upon the back of the note in suit, are sued as joint, makers; and it is alleged in the complaint that, for the purpose of giving the same credit with the payee, the plaintiff, they indorsed', the same before its delivery to or acceptance by him. This is denied by the answer, and the court finds upon the evidence that their in-dorsement was in fact made after the delivery of the note." If this, finding can be sustained, it follows that the contract of the principal maker with the plaintiff had become complete by delivery before the-indorsement, which was an independent transaction, and the in-dorsers are not, therefore,-liable as joint makers, as claimed in the-complaint. The only question raised on this appeal is that the evidence is not sufficient to support the finding of fact alluded to. Upon an examination of the record, however, we are satisfied that. there is evidence enough on the part of the defendants to raise an issue upon the facts, and that the decision of the court thereon must. be sustained.

Order affirmed.  