All phases of the matter should be fully heard and considered. The conditions precedent to setting aside a judgment for surprise and excusable neglect are stated in Fellos v. Allen, 202 N.C. 375, 162 S.E. 905. Error and remanded.

In Hooks v. Neighbors, 211 N.C. 382 (385), is the following: "In order to set aside a judgment for mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect, there must be a showing of a meritorious defense so that the courts can reasonably pass upon the question whether another trial, if granted, would result advantageously for the defendant. Bank v. Duke, 187 N.C. 386; Hill v. Hotel Co., 188 N.C. 586; Fellos v. Allen, 202 N.C. 375. A judgment may be set aside under this section if the moving party can show excusable neglect and that he has a meritorious defense.

In order to set aside a judgment for mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect, there must be a showing of a meritorious defense so that the courts can reasonably pass upon the question whether another trial, if granted, would result advantageously for the defendant. Farmers, etc., Bank v. Duke, 187 N.C. 386; Hill v. Huffines Hotel Co., 188 N.C. 586; Fellos v. Allen, 202 N.C. 375. A judgment may be set aside under this section if the moving party can show excusable neglect and that he has a meritorious defense.

Although there was irregularity in entering the judgment, yet unless the court can now see reasonably that defendants had a good defense, or that they could not make a defense that would affect the judgment, why should it engage in the vain work of setting the judgment aside now and then be called upon soon thereafter to render just such another between the same parties? To avoid this, the law requires that a prima facie valid defense must be set forth.' Jeffries v. Aaron, 120 N.C. 169, approved in Miller v. Smith, 169 N.C. 210, and in other cases." Garner v. Quakenbush, 187 N.C. 603; Holcomb v. Holcomb, 192 N.C. 504; Helderman v. Mills Co., 192 N.C. 626; Crye v. Stoltz, 193 N.C. 802; Bowie v. Tucker, 197 N.C. 671; Fellos v. Allen, 202 N.C. 375. In the present action, a prima facie defense was set forth by defendants and the clerk found that defendants had a good and meritorious defense.

We have given the question involved careful consideration, and have reached the conclusion that the judgment ought not to be disturbed. No error. Cited: Hunt v. Eure, 188 N.C. 719 (2c); In re Perry, 193 N.C. 398 (d); In re Will of Thompson, 196 N.C. 274 (5c); In re Will of Lowrance, 199 N.C. 785 (3c, 4c); In re Will of Rowland, 202 N.C. 375 (3c, 4c); In re Will of Wallace, 227 N.C. 461 (3c, 4c); Young v. Whitehall Co., 229 N.C. 367 (2c). (474)