Appellant corporation purchased certain restaurant equipment from the appellee. The sale was secured by the corporation’s promissory note dated April 15, 1964, in the sum of $4,237.51, and executed by appellant James A. Kefalas, President of the corporation. Kefalas and appellant Samuel Schanker, also an officer of the corporation, endorsed the note by signing their names as individuals. 1 When the *829 corporation defaulted on the note, appellee obtained a judgment for the balance of the note against the individual appellants as endorsers of the note.

Appellants’ sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in not submitting to the jury the issue of whether they had endorsed the note as individuals or as officers of the corporation. We agree.

It is well settled, and counsel for the appellee conceded, that where the action is between the original parties on the note, parol evidence is admissible to show that the individual signed as a representative of the corporation and that it was not intended that he incur individual liability. 2

In the instant case appellant Schan-ker testified that it was at all times the understanding of the parties that the note signed for the purchase of the equipment was a corporate note, and that he and the other individual appellant had signed the note solely in their capacities as officers of the corporation and not with the intent that they be individually responsible for the indebtedness. He further testified that he was never requested to sign the note for additional security.

This testimony produced a conflict in the evidence as to whether appellants endorsed the note in their individual capacities or as officers of the corporation. Since an issue of fact was raised, it should have been submitted to the jury. 3

Reversed with instructions to grant a new trial.