Shaw & Reed v. Davis

California Supreme Court

Shaw & Reed v. Davis

5 Cal. 466

DecidedJuly 1, 1855

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Cal. 466 (Shaw & Reed v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shaw & Reed v. Davis, 5 Cal. 466 (Cal. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

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]*467duced 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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]*467duced 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Cal. 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-reed-v-davis-cal-1855.