Lewis v. . Mitchell

Brogdes, J. The defendant “opened the door” with respect to the evidence relating to personal transactions with the deceased. Consequently the exceptions upon this phase of the case cannot be sustained.. Sumner v. Candler, 92 N. C., 634; Pope v. Pope, 176 N. C., 283; Walston v. Coppersmith, 197 N. C., 407. The defendant also excepted to certain conversations that third parties had with the deceased to the effect that he wanted the feme plaintiff to have his property. The record does not disclose that any of these witnesses had a pecuniary interest in the result of the action. “Exclusion does not apply when witness has no interest in the result of the action.” R. R. v. Hegwood, 198 N. C., 309; Conley v. Cabe, 198 N. C., 298. Exceptions were also taken to certain testimony relating to the value of the land. This evidence was competent upon the question of the value of services rendered by the plaintiffs to defendant’s intestate. Indeed, a careful examination of all the exceptions does not disclose reversible error, and the judgment is affirmed. No error.