¶1 It will be noticed that while the judge accepts the version of the conversation between the defendant and the officer as given by the latter, and finds that no in-. formation was promised unless it should turn out there was a mistake as to the person against whom the process was intended to issue, he. does not find whether the defendant did not labor under a misapprehension of the officer’s assurance, and his failure to defend the action was a consequence of this misunderstanding. His Honor refused to set aside the judgment, at the same time declaring that, if the defendant’s recollection of what transpired was correct, and the officer gave the alleged assurance, his ruling would be the same. Disregarding the hypothetical ruling suggested, we must assume the fact to be as found, that no such promise was made, and the defendant rested content upon his own misapprehension after the service of process upon him, and gave no further thought or attention to the case, neither *378 sending an agent, as he could not personally attend, to look after his interest in the suit, nor employing counsel to manage it and to ask for further time for the defendant to put in his answer, if his condition did not permit of its being prepared during the term. These omissions, connected with the facts accepted as truthful and contained in the affidavits offered in support of the motion, do not make out a case entitling the defendant to relief under the provisions of section 138 of the Code, because of his own culpable negligence. Concurring in the ruling of his Honor in this regard, we will only suggest that it was, in our opinion, irregular to enter any but an interlocutory judgment, as the granting of the relief asked involved the taking of an administered account, and to this end a reference was made. It is against the practice'to sever the facts of a demand made in the complaint, and enter final judgment for one portion, and make a reference to ascertain the amount of the other, for a final judgment as to that portion.
¶2 But the notice does not contemplate the granting of relief upon this ground, nor is it embraced in the case accompanying the appeal, to the consideration of the exceptions apparent in which, we, as a reviewing court, are restricted. The cases are numerous and not in entire harmony upon the proper rendering of this statute, which enlarges the authority of the court over its own judgments, and permits, in specified cases, their reversal within a year after notice of their rendition at the discretion of the court. The cases mostly in point in their bearing upon that before us are, Waddell v. Wood, 64 N. C., 624; White v. Snow, 71 N. C., 232; Sluder v. Rollins, 76 N. C., 271; Bradford v. Coit, 77 N. C., 72.
¶3 There is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed.
¶4 No error. ’ Affirmed.