The plaintiff does not, and the defendant cannot bring into review the law, as laid dowm by the presiding judge, as to the power of the guardian to make an accord, and receive satisfaction for the entry, and occupation by renting out the lands of his wards. Nor docs the case require, that we should examine the question. For we are of opinion, that the evidence offered by the defendant is not even prima facie evidence of that fact. The only evidence offered in support of that plea was the receipt. And that shows only, that certain bonds were received, by the guardian, of the defendant as next friend to the infants for rent, if it had been expressed in full of the rents received by him, or that they wore all the bonds received by him for rent, or all that he had rented the lands for, an inference might be drawn, that the guardian received them in full satisfaction. But no such expression is found in the receipt. *221 Nor was any evidence offered of all or any of these facts. There might be more bonds or money, and yet the receipt speak the truth. Wo therefore think, the defendant has no reason to complain of the charge of the judge. He neither showed, that they were all the bonds lie received, or that they were for the full value, on which to found a presumption, that the guardian received them in full satisfaction. Nor docs the guardian say so in the receipt.

Per Curiam. — Judgment reversed.