This is an action for medical services rendered by the plaintiff, á physician, to the defendant’s intestate. The plaintiff was offered as a witness in his own behalf to prove that he attended on the defendant; had an account against him therefor; to prove the items of the account, the number of visits he made, the sum due him therefor and the value of his services. Each of these questions was objected *119 to, and was properly ruled out. Sucb evidence was clearly as to “personal transactions” with tbe deceased and incompetent under tbe terms of tbe statute, Rev., 1631; Bunn v. Todd, 107 N. C., 266, and cases cited thereunder in tbe Annotated Ed., tbe defendant not having testified as to these matters.

Tbe. plaintiff cannot prove by bis own testimony either an express contract which would be a “communication” with tbe deceased, nor an implied contract by showing a “personal transaction,” as services rendered. Dunn v. Currie, 141 N. C., 125; Davidson v. Bardin, 139 N. C., 1.

Tbe only other exception is to tbe charge of tbe court upon tbe statute of limitation and need not be considered, for, as by tbe exclusion of tbe plaintiff’s testimony there was no indebtedness proven, any instruction upon tbe statute of limitation, if erroneous, would be harjnless error.

No error.