Contracts · MBE-tested
SHAW & REED, Respondents, v. GEORGE H. DAVIS, Appellant
5 Cal. 466·Supreme Court of California·1855·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
SHAW & REED, Respondents, v. GEORGE H. DAVIS, Appellant.
A broker, whose commissions or compensation depends on his principal’s recovery, is incompetent as a witness, on the ground that he is directly interested in the event of the suit.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco.
Pearkes & Wattson, for Appellant.
Robinson & Beatty, for Respondents.
[MAJORITY — Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court.]
Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.
On the trial of this cause in the Court below, the plaintiffs introduced as a witness one Webb, who testified on his voir dire, that he had negotiated the contract between the parties, and that his brokerage or compensation depended on the plaintiff's recovery; as it was a custom among brokers not to charge commissions in case a sale miscarried.
The witness was incompetent, and should have been excluded; inasmuch as he was directly interested in the event of the suit.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.