McMahon ex rel. Muh v. Bardinger , 2 Sadler 1 ( 1886 )

Per Curiam:

The controlling question in this case is whether Webster’s act in-receiving a payment on the mortgage was binding on the holder thereof. The evidence of his action and recognition as attorney was sufficient to submit to the jury, and justifies the finding. The specifications of error are not sustained.

Judgment affirmed.