
    D. A. RUDISILL v. FRANK LOVE and R. C. McLEAN, Administrators, and M. M. RUDISILL and K. B. NIXON.
    (Filed 28 November, 1923.)
    Evidence — Deceased Persons — Statutes—Transactions—Parties—Adverse Interests — Executoi’S and Administrators — Bills and Notes — Negotiable Instruments.
    In an action to recover upon a note against the personal representatives of a deceased person, and others whose names appear thereon as joint principals, the admission in the pleadings that the others whose names appeared on the instrument as makers were in fact but sureties thereon, is incompetent as being a personal transaction, etc., with a deceased person, C. S., sec. 1T95, it being in the interest of those thus claiming it, and against that of the deceased; and these interests being conflicting, the fact that they were all parties defendant does not vary the rule. 1
    Appeal by defendants, Frank Love and R. 0. McLean, administrators of the estate of Edgar Love, deceased, from Long, J., at May Special Term, 1923, of Gaston.
    Civil action to recover upon the following promissory note:
    “$7,500.' . CiiERRWiLLE, N. C., March 1, 1920.
    Six months after date, we promise to pay to the order of D. A. Rudi-sill seven thousand five hundred dollars, with interest from date at six per cent, for value received.
    Edgar Love. (Seal)
    M. M. Rudisill. (Seal) Kemp B. Nixon. (Seal)”
    Defense interposed by M. M. Rudisill and Kemp B. Nixon that they signed said note as sureties only, and that they are not liable thereon as principals.
    Upon the issues thus raised, the jury returned the following verdict:
    “1. Did the defendants execute the note set out in the complaint, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: 'Yes.’
    “2. Are the defendants indebted .to the plaintiff,' as alleged in the complaint; and if so, in what amount? Answer: 'Yes; the amount of note, $7,500, and interest from 1 March, 1920.’
    “3. Was the note sued on executed by the defendants, M. M. Rudisill and K. B. Nixon, as sureties for Edgar Love, to the knowledge of the plaintiff, D. A. Rudisill? Answer: 'Yes.’”
    Judgment for the plaintiff in accordance with the verdict, from which the administrators of the estate of Edgar Love, deceased, appealed.
    
      
      Woltz & Woltz, David P. Dellinger, and Geo. W. Wilson for plaintiff.
    
    
      A. L. Quickel and Mangum & Denny for Frank Love and B. G. McLean, administrators.,
    
   Stacy, J.

On tbe bearing, and over objection of Frank Love and E. C. McLean, administrators of tbe estate of Edgar Love, deceased, plaintiff was permitted to offer in evidence a part of paragraph 5 of tbe answer of Eudisill and Nixon and tbe corresponding allegation in tbe fifth paragraph of tbe complaint, as follows:

Complaint: “5. That tbe defendants are justly indebted to tbe plaintiff in tbe sum of $7,500, with interest on $7,500 from tbe first day of March, 1920, until paid.”

Answer of Eudisill and Nixon: “5. Answering tbe allegations of paragraph 5 of tbe complaint, these defendants deny that they are indebted to tbe plaintiff as principals upon tbe note referred to therein, and allege that tbe note was executed by Edgar Love as principal, and by these defendants as sureties thereon.”

¥e think this evidence, tending to show tbe alleged suretyship of Eudisill and Nixon, was incompetent as against tbe administrators of tbe estate of Edgar Love, deceased, under O. S., 1795. It necessarily involved a personal transaction or communication between tbe defendants, Eudisill and Nixon, and tbe deceased, for upon tbe face of tbe note they all appear to be principals. Obviously, if tbe contention of tbe defendants, Eudisill and Nixon, be correct, some different understanding must have existed between tbe parties to tbe transaction. Eudi-sill and Nixon, being parties to this proceeding and interested in tbe event, may not testify to any such transaction or communication with tbe deceased, over objection of tbe administrators. Tbe fact that Eudi-sill and Nixon are codefendants with tbe administrators cannot have tbe effect of rendering this evidence competent, because their interests are in conflict with tbe interests of tbe administrators. Sutton v. Wells, 175 N. C., 1.

For tbe error, as indicated, there must be a new trial on tbe third issue; but tbe new trial will be limited to this issue, as we find no error in respect to tbe others. Pickett v. R. R., 117 N. C., p. 639.

Partial new trial.  