It appearing that the interests of the Citizens Bant, Inc., and the Maryland Casualty Company are in conflict with respect to the amount of the alleged shortage in the official accounts of the deceased county treasurer, we are of opinion that the judgment rendered on the admission of the Citizens Bank, Inc., as administrator, should have been excluded as evidence against the surety, notwithstanding C. S., 358, which provides that in actions on official bonds, any receipt or acknowledgment of the obligors shall be admissible and competent as presumptive evidence against any or all of the sureties. This statute has no application to self-serving receipts or acknowledgments made by a party under circumstances such as disclosed by the present record. Tbe judgment was entered on the day of trial, over objection of the surety, and, in view of the relationship disclosed, we are of opinion that the objection should have been sustained. This was the only opportunity the surety bad to challenge the correctness of the judgment, or to attack it in any way.
Tbe administrator having a personal or corporate interest at variance with that of the surety will not be permitted to create evidence favorable to its personal or corporate interest, and practically foreclose the rights of the surety, by admitting liability when the facts are in dispute. It is true that in the instant case, the answer of the administrator was filed before the bank, in its corporate capacity, was brought in as a party defendant, but its corporate interest was apparent at the time of trial. There was nothing said in Insurance Co. v. Bonding Co., 162 N. C., 385, 78 S. E., 430, which, when properly applied, militates against our present position. Tbat case dealt with an unquestioned judgment against the .principal, previously entered in another court and in a separate suit.
Tbe cause will be remanded for a fuller finding or determination of the facts and for further adjudication of the rights of the parties.
Error and remanded.