*665 OPINION

It is contended by Collins that the judgment of August 31st was vacated for the express purpose of extending the time within which an appeal could be prosecuted to the Court of Common Pleas, an appeal from the judgment o‘f August 31st not having- been perfected, and that the vacation of that judgment was an abuse of discretion on the part of the Municipal Court. The record does not show the reason for the vacating and setting aside of the judgment, but does show that the questions in issue were again “submitted” to the court, and it will be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the court acted in good faith and that the action taken by it was warranted and justified. The situation as it now confronts us appears to be that Collins seeks to prevent an appeal from a judgment which he claims is valid and subsisting as to him, when if there were any legal reason therefor, he might have prosecuted error to the Court of Common Pleas to reverse the order vacating the judgment first rendered in his favor.

The facts here presented are unlike the facts stated in the opinion cited to us, involving an appeal from a judgment, which when dismissed, was followed by a second judgment from which a second appeal was attempted, but involve- a single appeal from a judgment apparently valid.

Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is therefore reversed and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings according to law.

Reversed and remanded.