Shaw & Reed v. Davis
Before: Murray
Synopsis
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.
Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.
On the trial of this cause in the Court below, the plaintiffs intro[467]duced 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.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)