ARK ] RANKIN V. MORGAN. 751 RANKIN V. MORGAN. 4-4554 Opinion delivered March 8, 1937. WITNESSES.—The statute providing that, in actions by or against administrators or executors, in which judgment may be rendered for or , against them, neither party shall be allowed to testify against the other as to any transactions with or statements of the testator or intestate unless called by the opposite party held not to apply in an action by M. against the estate of R. for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision in which R. was killed to prohibit M. from relating the details of the accident, where no statements of R. were involved, since the collision was not a transaction with R. within the meaning of . the statute. Crawford & Moses' Dig., § 4144; Const. Schedule, § 2.
752 RANKIN v. MORGAN. [193 Appeal . from Pulaski Circuit . Court, Second Division; Richard M. Mann, Judge ; affirmed. Sam Robinson and G. B. Colvin, for appellant. Tom F. Digby, for 'appellee. • BAKER, J. J. E. ,Morgan sued the estate of L. H. Rankin. and recovered a judgment for peKsonal . injuries. suffered in an automobile collision in which Rankin was killed. Frani a judgment. recovered against the estate of L. H. Rankin tbis appeal has been taken to test the correctness of a ruling of the trial court. in .permitting the plaintiff, appellee here, to testify as to the collision and incidents in relation thereto. It is urged that a, reCovery was necessarily based ulion this alleged incompetent tes: timony, and that . a reversal 'mist follow should it be held that the testimony was imi)roperly admitted over ob: jections. • • • . . The parties have favored us only fo the extent that they have stated the issue without furnishing . citationS to authorities supporting their respective ontentions: The reason tor thiS is suggested by the almost unfruitful independent search .-We have made. . Section 2, of the Schedule of the Constitution of Ark-ansas provides : "Interest no disqualification. In civil action, no witness shall be excluded because he is a party to the suit or interested in the fssue to be tried. Provided, in actions by or against executors, administrators or guardians, in which judgment may be rendered for or against them, neither'party shall be allowed to testify against the other as to ahy transactions with or stateinents of the testator, intestate or ward,.unless called to testify thereto by the opposite party. Provided further, this section may be amended or repealed by the General Assembly." § 4144, Crawford & Moses' Digest. Morgan, a witness in his own behalf was permitted over objections of the administratrix, to relate the details of the accident. No statements of Rankin were involved.
ARK.] • . RANKIN" 42. MORGAN.; • 753 1* The objection was that this testimony , was as to "transactions with" Rankin, now :deceased, and therefore within the inhibition. • Specifically,. it is,• in this case, urged. , that a .'head-on collision • of a- truck . driven by ° Morgan and a. passenger car driveni by Rankin constitutes "transactions with" each. other,. and. that Morgan, the survivor, may not- testify in regard -thereto' over the objection of the administrator.- . • • : We do not agree with • this interpretation: Such is not the'uSual, CO11/111011 or ordinarily' accepted nteanihg of the ; word " transaction. " "• • The WOO . is defined : . "A businesS deal ; . aet yOlVing' buYing and . elling; a s,. • the transactions' , On' the 'eXehange."" Its . synefiyin iS • negotiatión. Webstdr's'New International DictibnafY . ;. SeCond Edition. ' The placing Of theSe . terms '" transaction with" • . a • n d "statbthents Of " in juxtapOsition Within* the inhibitory clause indicates a . certain affinity between . the; tWo, ejusde* generis, the general or more eonikehenSive is the ' first and the sPecific' is thO SecOnd. We have not been favored with any citation of 'authority covering directly or by analogy the exact point under consideration. But there are decisions of this court illustrative of the conditions wherein the protection of this bit Of the .organic , law may be' inVoked.— Wil-liams v. Walden, 82, Ark.; 136,.-100,S.. W. 898. This case deals with transactions as . distinguished from statements. The same condition prevail's in the case of Cash v. Kirk-ham, 67 Ark.-318, 319, ,55 S. W..18. 1 See, also, Strayhorn V. McCall, 78 Ark.' 269,'95 S. W. 455, 8 Ann. Cas. 377. In another case we:said: * , . . . "It is finally insisted that much ,of the testimony of Sol Gans is incompetent, because -it involved transactions with the deceased Heiseman in a suit against his adminisT trator, and thereby Offends against the inhibition Of § •2 of the Schednle of the ConstitutiOn . prOhibiting suCh:evi7 dence. The testimony that _the relation between witness and Heiseman was one of unreserved and unlimited trust and confidence related' to a relationship, rathor than to
754 [193 a transaction, and is not, therefore, incompetent. The testimony of Gans, that Heiseman suggested to him, at a meeting of the stockholders of the Co-Operative Real Estate Company, that they purchase the assets of that corporation, was incompetent, .because it does relate to a transaction between the witness and the administrator's intestate." Lasker-Morris Bank & Trust Co. v. Gans, 132 Ark. 402, 410, 200 S. W. 1029. See; also, Zimmerman v. Hemann, 142 Ark. 308, 218 S. W. 835 ; Graves v. Bowles, 190 Ark. 579, 79 S. W. (2c1) 995. It may, therefore, be said that a party may not, over objection of the administrator, undertake to interpret or express what was in the mind of one whose estate he sues, by giving details of dealings, negotiations or transactions or by quoting statements made in relation to such matters. Since the disqualification of witnesses is not favored,, we make the observation that We will not extend or expand, by interpretation the limited 'compass of the terms discussed. A collision and incidents connected therewith are not transactions with the testator or intestate as the case may be. . Affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.