
    A. RAY v. C. G. RAY.
    (Filed 3 April, 1918.)
    Appeal and Error — Evidence—Transactions with Deceased — Statutes—Verdict — Harmless Error.
    The erroneous admission of evidence of transactions with deceased persons, prohibited by Revisal, sec. 1631, becomes immaterial when from the answers by the jury to the issues it appears that this evidence was disregarded by them.
    Civil actiow, tried before Bond, J., at October Term, 1917, of BnAnEN, upon these issues:
    1. Was tbe execution of tbe deed referred to in tbe complaint procured by assurances of said C. Gr. Ray tbat -be would provide and take care of bis father and mother so long as they lived, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: “Tes.”
    2. Did tbe defendant, C. Gr. Ray, make assurances for tbe purpose of getting said deed and with tbe intention of not providing for and caring for bis father and mother as be agreed to do? Answer: “No.”
    3. Has defendant, C. Gr. Ray, made provision for and cared for bis father and mother as be promised and agreed to do ? Answer: “Yes.”
    From tbe judgment rendered, plaintiff appealed.
    
      B.J. McCulloch, Jr., for plaintiff.
    
    
      Bayard Ciarle for defendant.
    
   Bbown, J.

On 5 July, 1913, tbe plaintiff, A. Ray and wife, P. A. Ray, conveyed a certain tract of land in Bladen County to their son, O. G-. Ray, tbe defendant. Tbis deed was made on tbe special trust tbat C.Gr. Ray should provide and take care of bis father and mother as long as they lived.

Tbis action is brought to bave tbe deed set aside because of tbe failure of defendant to carry out the agreement. The only exceptions considered in appellant’s brief relate to a conversation between tbe deceased wife of plaintiff and tbe defendant testified to by defendant. Tbe objection was made in apt time and is based on section 1631, Revisal. Tbe evidence tended to contradict the contention of- plaintiff that the defendant agreed to support his father and mother (the plaintiff and his wife) as a consideration for the execution of the deed.

As the jury found with the plaintiff on first issue, thereby establishing the trust, the exception is irrelevant. It is manifest that the jury disregarded defendant’s evidence upon that issue.

The jury have found that the defendant accepted the deed upon the alleged trust, and that he has fully performed so far the agreement upon his part.

In view of the findings of the jury, the assignments of error .are irrelevant.

No error.  