PICKEL V. ISGBIGG. 677 �Gebsham, D. J. The plaintiff, as indorsee of a negotiable promissory note, sued Jesse Isgrigg as maker and George B. Forgy as indorser. Failing to appear, judgment was entered agaiust Forgy by default. Isgrigg answered: (1) Special non est factum; (2) that Forgy was the owner of the note and the real party in interest; (3) general non est factum. The defendant demanded a jury. A number of witnesses testified for the plaintiff, the note was read to the jury, and the plaintiff rested. Some of the witnesses testified that they saw the defendant sign the note after it had been read over to him in their presence and hearing. The defendant then testified in his own behalf, denying that he had ever signed the note, or authorized any one else to sign it for him. Other witnesses also testified for the defendant. The evidence of one or more of the defendant's witnesses tended to show that Forgy was still the owner of the note, and that he had in- dorsed it to the plaintiff, who is his sister, and a citizen of the state of lowa, for the purpose of collecting it in this court. �After the defendant had conduded his evidence and rested, the plaintiff, by her counsel, announced that she demurred to the evidence. Time was given to prepare the demurrer, and the jury was discharged. This was done without objection by the defendant. The entire evidence on both sides, as reported by the stenographer, is set out in the demurrer which was afterwards filed. The demurrer concludes as fol- lows : "And this being ail the evidence given in the cause, the plaintiff says the evidence of the defendant Jesse Isgrigg, given in support of the issues tendered by him herein, is not sufficient for him to have and maintain his defenee in this action, and therefore she demurs thereto, and prays that said Isgrigg be required to join in this demurrer; and the plain- tiff admits the facts stated by the witnesses for the defendant herein before set out, and every inferenee and conclusion the jury may rightfully and reasonably draw therefrom." �Neither on the argument of the demurrer, nor at any previens time, was there any objection to the sufficiency of the demurrer or the regularity of any of the proceediags con- ��� �
