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.