The court below denied the motion of W. J. Shuford, receiver, for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 567. In this we see no error.

*722 In Jeffrey v. Mfg. Co., 197 N. C., 725-6, the law is stated as follows: “Our decisions are to the effect that a prima facie showing takes the case to the jury, and it is therefore a question for the jury to determine whether or not the necessary facts have been established. This rule of law was tersely expressed in Speas v. Bank, 188 N. C., 524, as follows: IA prima facie case, or prima facie evidence, does not change the burden of proof. It only stands until its weight is met by evidence to the contrary. The opposing party, however, is not required as a matter of law to offer evidence in reply. He only takes the risk of an adverse verdict if he fails to do so. The case is carried to the jury on a prima facie showing, and it is for them to say whether or not the crucial and necessary facts have been established.’ ”

Taking the charge as a whole, we think no prejudicial or reversible error is shown on this aspect. In re Ross, 182 N. C., at p. 478, we find the following: “It is now the settled rule of appellate courts that verdicts and judgments will not be set aside for harmless error, or for mere error and no more. To accomplish this result, it must be made to appear not only that the ruling complained of was erroneous, but that it was material and prejudicial, amounting to a denial of some substantial right. Our system of appeals, providing for a review of the trial court on questions of law, is founded upon sound public policy, and appellate courts will not encourage litigation by reversing judgments for slight error, or for stated objections, which could not have prejudiced the rights of appellant in any material way. Burris v. Litaker, 181 N. C., 376; In re Eden’s Will, ante, 398, and cases there cited. Again, error will not be presumed; it must be affirmatively established. The appellant is required to show error, and he must make it appear plainly, as the presumption is against him. In re Smith’s Will, 163 N. C., 464; Lumber Co. v. Buhmann, 160 N. C., 385; Albertson v. Terry, 108 N. C., 75.”

We think the issues answered in favor of the Industrial Loan and Investment Bank sufficient to sustain the judgment. The assignments of error on the part of the receiver were- not material and if errors were not prejudicial or reversible. For the reasons given in the companion case in which the Guardian Life Insurance Company of America was claimant, we think the judgment of the court below should be sustained. We find in law

No error.