Case ID: cal_5/html/0466-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

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.
   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.