Richter v. Goldberg

Citations

• 78 Pa. Super. 309
• 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 105

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Confidential communications — Attorney and client— Beal estate — Leases—Measure of damages.</p> <p>Communications made to an attorney for the purpose of being conveyed by him to others are not in the nature of confidential disclosures, and, therefore, are not privileged.</p> <p>It is only confidential communications between an attorney and client which are privileged. Such privilege does not extend to communications made by a litigant to his attorney for the purpose of being communicated to the adverse party, nor to communications made by an attorney to his client at the instance and request of the opposing solicitor or adverse party.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for breach of a contract to lease real estate, it was error for the court to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff's attorney as to a message regarding the property given to him by defendant to transmit to his client. There was nothing confidential about such communication as it was made for the express purpose of telling the other party. The attorney was a competent witness to prove the message which had been given him, as the agent of his client, and that the same had been transmitted to his client, and the reply which the latter had instructed him to make thereto. He was merely the mouthpiece or means of communication between the parties, and was only called upon to testify to the matters, which each had told him for the express purpose of conveying the information to the other.</p> <p>The value of the lease, in the circumstances of this case, should have been proven by competent witnesses familiar with local conditions of the renting values of real estate in that neighborhood.</p>