(after stating the case, as above). The second exception is so obviously untenable as not to have been pressed in the argument before us, and we accordingly dismiss it from further consideration, and proceed to examine the other.

The section of The Code which the proposed proof, coming from the original owner of the claim, is held to contravene, has been the prolific subject of controversy in adapting it to various cases which have been before the Court, as is shown by the numerous citations annexed to the section. The ruling ’which excluded the testimony of the witness, the plaintiff’s assignor, as to the payments made by the deceased, is clearly within the prohibitory terms, for he is one “under whom a party (the plaintiff)' derives his interest,” and the payments were, severally, “a personal transaction” between them. Apparently, the evidence sought was adversary to the plaintiff, as tending to diminish his demand, but, as the *60 other evidence on the point is not stated, it may have been to reduce the payments in amount, and thus enlarge the unpaid residue and benefit the plaintiff. But the statute refuses to allow such witness to speak of a transaction, personal between himself and deceased, without reference to its effect upon the controversy, for the reason that the deceased ought, in reference to such, to be also heard, and, therefore, closes the lips of each party.

With the policy of the enactment wre have nothing to do, but our duty is limited to asc-rtaining its import and giving effect to the legislative intent expressed.

There is no error.

Affirmed.