¶1 The question for decision is the sufficiency of the-record to support the judgment. There are no exceptions to any of the findings of fact. Hence, only the face of the record is presented for inspection and review. In re Collins, 226 N.C. 412, 38 S.E. 2d 160; Wilson v. Robinson, 224 N.C. 851, 32 S.E. 2d 601; Vestal v. Vending Machine Co., 219 N.C. 468, 14 S.E. 2d 427; Brown v. Truck Lines, 227 N.C. 65, 40 S.E. 2d 476; Harney v. Comrs. of McFarlan, 229 N.C. 71, 47 S.E. 2d 535; Rhodes v. Asheville, 229 N.C. 355, 49 S.E. 2d 638; Parker v. University, ante, 656.
¶2 In addition to the facts found by the Judge, which are fortified by recitals in the judgment and the commissioner’s deed, Powell v. Turpin, 224 N.C. 67, 29 S.E. 2d 26; Everett v. Newton, 118 N.C. 919, 23 S.E. 961, G.S. 98-16, the regularity of the proceeding is further supported by the principle omnia rite acta praesumuniur. Williamson v. Spivey, 224 N.C. 311, 30 S.E. 2d 46; Downing v. White, 211 N.C. 40, 188 S.E. 815; Starnes v. Thompson, 173 N.C. 466, 92 S.E. 259; S. v. Mann, 219 N.C. 212, 13 S.E. 2d 247. “A prima facie presumption of rightful jurisdiction arises from the fact that a court of general jurisdiction has acted in the matter.” Williamson v. Spivey, supra; Graham v. Floyd, 214 N.C. 77, 197 S.E. 873; S. v. Adams, 213 N.C. 243, 195 S.E. 822.
¶3*725 On the record as presented, no exceptive assignment of error is revealed which would seem to call for a disturbance of the judgment.
¶4 Affirmed.