Gilbert, J.
1. “ Ordinarily, in a suit instituted or defended by a husband for or against a deceased person, it is competent for the wife to testify in regard to transactions between the husband and the deceased. Mere personal interest, such as that entertained by a near relative, does not disqualify a witness.” Kitchens v. Poole, 146 Ga. 229 (5) (91 S. E. 81). It does not appear that the wife, who was introduced as a witness, had any pecuniary interest in the result of the suit; therefore she was not an incompetent witness.
2. The death of one of the parties to a litigation does not render the other party entirely incompetent to testify as a witness, “ but only incompetent to testify to transactions or communications with the deceased. Independent physical facts which do not involve any such communication or transaction are not within the rule.” Nugent v. Watkins, 129 Ga. 382 (1), 383 (58 S. E. 888). Chamblee v. Pirkle, 101 Ga. 790, 792 (29 S. E. 20). The evidence to which objection was offered in the present case, under the above-stated rule, was properly admitted.
3. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition.
4. The verdict is supported by evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
Mrs. Holbrooks individually, as administratrix, and as guardian for the two minors, filed an answer setting up that L. P. Holbrooks had no interest in the lands as heir or purchaser; that his possession was only that of a tenant of O. H. Holbrooks; that he had never paid any part of the purchase-money; that he did attempt to purchase a half interest in the land from 0. H. Holbrooks but the same was never consummated; that the deeds conveying the land to 0. H. Holbrooks were duly recorded in Ployd County; that on January 30, 1914, 0. H. Holbrooks executed and delivered to Mrs. L. H. G. Pressley a deed to the land in dispute, which .was duly recorded; that 0. H. Holbrooks was in open, notorious, adverse possession of said land under color of title for more than seven years; that plaintiff had notice of the same, and is therefore barred from asserting any adverse title; that plaintiff is barred by laches, for that his right of action accrued more than four years before the bringing of his petition; that said equity is stale, and it would be contrary to good conscience and the rules of equity to set the same up now; and that plaintiff’s right of action is barred by the statute of limitations.
Trial of the case resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. A motion for new trial filed by defendants was overruled, and error ■is also assigned thereon.
The first ground of the amendment to the motion for new trial complains that the court admitted testimony of Theresa Holbrooks, wife of the plaintiff, to the effect that her son, 0. H. Holbrooks, induced L. P. Holbrooks to “ go in halves in ” buying the place; that they were each to pay one half; that L. P. Holbrooks paid one half of the initial payment of $750; that witness was present when the land was divided; that 0. H. Holbrooks ran the line straight east and west, 0. H. Holbrooks taking the north side and her husband the south side; that when the third payment fell due upon the land, 0. H. Holbrooks obtained from witness money belonging to L. P. Holbrooks with which to pay the full amount due at that time; that the money was not loaned to him; that none of it was ever paid back; that witness kept her husband’s money nearly all the time; that 0. H. Holbrooks told the witness, upon many occasions, that she should make a deed to L. P.; that he told witness he would make the deed for the half on his next visit to town; that on an occasion during the last illness of 0. H. Holbrooks he stated to witness, “ the land is tormenting and aggravating the life out of me, because I told you and Pa I would make a deed for your half of the place, but I had . . a mortgage on it for four hundred dollars, and didn’t mean for you to know it. . . I could make you a deed by paying out thirty-five or forty dollars.” The witness also testified: “ When we moved on that place in 1909 the house on it was an old shell. My husband built two chimneys and porches and some rooms, and covered it. He planted a nice orchard and fixed-the barn.” The objection was upon the ground, that, the action being one against the personal representative of O. H. Holbrooks, deceased, L. P. Holbrooks or his agent (the witness) was incompetent to testify as to transactions and conversations between L. P. and .0- H. Holbrooks, or the agent of L. P. Holbrooks and 0. H. Holbrooks.
The only other special ground of the motion for a new trial complains that the court permitted the plaintiff to testify: “ I have made lots- of improvements on that place. They had these old dirt chimneys, you know, and I bought brick and built tw;o chimneys, and built a room to the house, and floored it, and ceiled the other room, and I roofed it and ceiled the loft, and put good floors in it. I bought the material and trees to improve that property. I paid for them” — over the objection: "this being a suit by the plaintiff, said L. P. Holbrooks, against the personal representative of O. H. Holbrooks, he was incompetent to testify as to any improvements placed on the place in question, as the lips of said 0. H. Holbrooks were sealed by death.”
Harper Hamilton and Harris & Harris, for plaintiffs in error.
M. B. Eubanks, contra.