¶1 Affirmed on authority of McDonald v. Howe, 178 N. C.,. 257, 100 S. E., 427, Pfeifer v. Drug Co., 171 N. C., 214, 88 S. E., 343, Knowles v. Savage, 140 N. C., 372, 52 S. E., 930, Thompson v. Peebles, 85 N. C., 418.
¶2 Speaking to a similar situation in Ferrell v. Hales, 119 N. C., 199, 25 S. E., 821, Clark, J., observed: “The judge could not set aside the-verdict rendered at the previous term; and if he could not enter judgment upon the facts found by the jury by their recorded verdict, the matter would have been forever suspended, like Mahomet’s coffin.
¶3 ‘In Aladdin’s tower
¶4 Some unfinished window unfinished must remain.’
¶5 “Not so in legal proceedings which deal with matters of fact, not fancy. The judge, at the next term, seeing the record complete up to and including the verdict, properly rendered judgment nunc pro tunc. This. *815 was practical common sense and is justified by precedent. Bright v. Sugg, 15 N. C., 492; Long v. Long, 85 N. C., 415; Smith v. State, 1 Tex. App., 408. As to difficulties suggested, it may be observed that, while the judgment as between the parties is entered as of the former term, nunc fro tunc, as to third parties it can only be a lien from the docketing, which by The Code, sec. 433, has effect from the first day of the term at which it was actually entered.” There is no question here as to the rights of third persons.
¶6 Affirmed.