Case ID: us_1/html/0453-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Shippen, President.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JUNE TERM, 1789.
    Holmes v. Comegys.
    
      Witness. — Confidential Communications.
    
    The confidential agent or factor of a party is not privileged from giving testimony.
    This was a scire facias against the garnishee in a foreign attachment, upon the trial of which, the confidental agent or factor of the original defendants, who was casually attending in court, was offered as a witness, to prove effects in the hands of the garnishee.
    
      JOevy,
    
    objected to the admission of the witness ; and contended, that he ought not to be allowed, or, at least, compelled, to give evidence of matters confidentially communicated to him as an agent; and that the court had then no power over him as a witness, because he had not been subpoenaed to attend. But by—
   Shippen, President.

It would be of very dangerous consequence, if it was established, that a commercial agent was not amenable as a witness in a court of justice, in a cause against his constituent. It is straining the matter of privilege too far. And if the law makes him a witness, we are too fond of getting at the truth, to permit him to excuse himself from declaring it, because he conceives, that, in point of delicacy, it would be a breach of confidence.

By the Court. — Let the witness be affirmed, 
      
       See Morris v. Vanderen, ante, p. 64.