after stating the facts: This is an anomalous case. The plaintiff, who is a judgment creditor of the defendant, brings his action in his own behalf and in that of all the creditors of the defendant who will make themselves’ parties to the action for a settlement of the estate of defendant’s intestate. A number of claims are presented to the administrator, and among them, one by the creditor Rogers. The plaintiffs dispute the claim of Rogers, and say it is barred by the statute of limitations. Rogers then files his complaint, and instead of establishing his claim and securing a status in court by showing that his account was not barred by the statute of limitations and that he was entitled as a creditor to share in the fund, he resists the claim of the plaintiff upon the grounds: first, that he never had a judgment against the defendant, and secondly, if he had, the cause of action upon which his judgment was founded was barred by the statute of limitations.
His Honor very properly held that the judgment having-been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, it was not competent for Rogers to go behind the judgment. Iieid v. Spoon, 66 N. C., 415.
Under this statement of the case it would seem to us that the only issue to be submitted to the jury was, whether the claim of Rogers was barred by the statute of limitations, for if his claim was barred he could acquire no footing in court. He would *47have no right to share in the fund and should not be permitted any more than a mere stranger to interpose an objection to the claim of another creditor.
But His Honor saw proper to submit the following issues to the jury:
1. Is the account of Rogers barred by the statute of limitations ?
2. Did Moore obtain judgment against defendant administrator, and was the same docketed in the Superior Court, as alleged by Moore?
Both issues were found by the jury in the affirmative.
To support the second issue, Moore, upon objection by Rogers, was permitted to introduce as evidence an entry upon the docket of the Superior Court, showing that on the 24th day of August, 1876, transcript of judgment was filed as alleged.
To the admission of this evidence Rogers excepted, contending that the original judgment-roll before the justice was the only proper evidence.
Me think there was no error in admitting the evidence. The transcript being filed and docketed is at least prima facie evidence of a judgment rendered by the justice, and is supported by the maxim “omnia prcesumuntur rite cieta esse.” The bare fact of docketing the judgment is prima, facie evidence of its existence, and that it was rendered as the transcript imports.
In Reid v. Spoon, supra, it is held that a judgment rendered according to the course of the court cannot be collaterally impeached, and that judgments of justices’ courts regularly docketed upon the judgment docket of the Superior Cowt form no exception to the principle above stated.
There is no error. Let this be certified that the case may be proceeded with according to law.
No error. Affirmed.