The defendants insist that they are not bound to pay the charge until the land on which the charge was made, comes into possession, and, that they are not chargeable with interest until the said land comes into possession. And they further insist that the order of his Honor was erroneous, in that he ordered a venditioni exponas to issue when there was only a general decree of confirmation, which they contend is hot a judgment.
*401We are not aware of any statute or principle of law which suspends the payment of a sum charged upon one lot in a partition in favor of another, until the lot upon which the charge is made falls'into possession. That difficulty might possibly have been avoided when the petition for partition came to a hearing, by objecting to the partition of the land in reversion; but after the partition had been made and the report of the commi-sioners confirmed, it was conclusive upon the parties in respect to the thing in which they had, or admitted, or it was declared, they had an estate in common, and also in respect to the share to which each was entitled and to the parcel allotted to each as his share in sev-eralty. Stewart v. Mizell, 8 Ired. Eq., 242, and Mills v. Witherington, 2 Dev. & Bat., 433.
The only suspension of the payment of the sum charged upon a lot for equality of partition is provided for in Bat. Rev., ch. 84, §9, which says; “ When a minor to whom a more valuable dividend shall fall, is charged with the payment of any sum, the money shall not be payable until such minor arrives at the age of twenty-one years.” The feme defendant in this case attained her majority on the 5th of May, 1877, and the sum charged on her share then became payable, but by the 8th section of that chapter, bore interest from the date of the confirmation of the report of the commissioners.
As to the last exception taken by the defendants, that the decree rendered by the clerk in the petition for partition, confirming the report of the commissioners, was not such á judgment as would warrant the court in issuing a venditioni ■exponas, we think it is untenable. The clerk did not pro! fess to set forth a transcript of the record of the proceedings for partition, but in finding the facts states that it appeared from the records on file in his office and by the agreement of the parties, that the report of the commissioners had been confirmed by the. clerk'on the 25th of October, 1875, and by *402Judge Cannon on the 2nd day of November, 1875. From this, statement we must take it that the report was confirmed by a proper decree, under the maxim “ Omnia presumun-tur rite acta esse.”
There is no error. The judgment of the court must be affirmed. Let this be certified to the superior court of Haywood county.
No error. Affirmed.