¶1 This case was before us at January Term, 1871, and is reported in 65 N. C. Rep. 51.
¶2 Although it involved at that time only a question of practice under the Code of Civil Procedure, we took occasion, in order to save further litigation, to express an opinion upon the point which is now presented for decision.
¶3 We listened with attention to the suggestions of the able counsel, who argued the case for the defendants at this term, but we are unable to see any reason for changing our opinion.
¶4 All of the points made by the defendants in the record before us are based upon the assumption, that they are lia *307 ble only de bonis testatoris ; but as that foundation must fall, all o'f the superstructure must fall with it; the principal and incidents go together.
¶5 The fact that the defendants are styled “executors,” &c., in the judgment in the Superior Court of Iredell county, can avail them nothing. A train of decision fixes their liability de bonis propriis, and the addition of the word “executors,” in said judgment is mere surplusage.
¶6 The defendants’ counsel attacked the form of the judgment in this case, because it does not distinguish the principal from the sum allowed as interest as directed by the Revised Code, chap. 31, sec. 90.
¶7 To this it was replied by Mr. Bailey that it appeared from the record that there had been several payments, which had discharged all of the interest due, and also a portion of the principal, leaving only principal money due, and therefore the judgment was properly rendered.
¶8 At all events it is evident that the point was not intended to be presented by the record. Kesler v. Hall, 64 N. C. Rep. 60; Hailey v. Wheeler 4 Jones 159.
¶9 The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.
¶10 This will be certified.
¶11 Judgment affirmed.