Case Name: Holmes v. Comegys
Court: Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1789-06
Citations: 1 Dall. 439
Docket Number: 
Parties: Holmes v. Comegys.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 453–453

Head Matter:
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—

Opinion:
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.