Agreements to refer matters in dispute to arbitration are sometimes regarded as attempts to "oust the jurisdiction of the courts," and to that extent will not be enforced.2* The most common illus condition precedent.29 Upon principle, however, it seems that such a condition should be given effect in the one case as in the other, and that to do so is in no sense to oust the jurisdiction of the court.30

20 Keir v. Leeman, 6 Q. B. 321. See, also, Id. 9 Q. B. 395; Windhill Local Board v. Vint, 45 Ch. D. 351. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 128; Cent. Dig. §§ 633-653.

21 Partridge v. Hood, 120 Mass. 403, 21 Am. Rep. 524; Wright v. Rindskopf, 43 Wis. 361; Pearce v. Wilson, I11 Pa. 14, 2 Atl. 99, 56 Am. Rep. 243; Jones v. Dannenberg Co., 112 Ga. 426, 37 S. E. 729, 52 L. R. A. 271. And see State v. Carver, 69 N. H. 216, 39 Atl. 973. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 128; Cent. Dig. §§ 633-653.

22 Flower v. Sadler, 10 Q. B. Div. 572; Nickelson v. Wilson, 60 N. T. 362; Weber v. Barrett, 125 N. Y. 18, 25 N. E. 1068; Bothwell v. Brown, 51 I11. 234; Cass County Bank v. Bricker, 34 Neb. 516, 52 N. W. 575, 33 Am. St Rep. 649; Fosdick v. Van Arsdale, 74 Mich. 302, 41 N. W. 931; Portner v. Kirschner, 169 Pa. 472, 32 Aty. 442, 47 Am. St. Rep. 925; Sloan v. Davis, 105 Iowa, 97, 74 N. W. 922; Powell v. Flanary, 109 Ky. 342, 59 S. W. 5; Paige v. Hieronymus, 192 I11. 546, 61 N. E. 832. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 123; Cent. Dig. §§ 633-653.

23 Brown v. McCreight, 187 Pa. 181, 41 Atl. 45. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 128; Cent. Dig. §§ 633-653.

24Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n v. Woolen Mills, 82 Fed. 508, 27 C. C. A. 212. Agreement between fidelity insurance company and employs whose honesty is guarantied that voucher showing payment by company to employer of loss occasioned through employe's dishonesty should be conclusive evidence against employe as to fact and extent of his liability to company, was void as trations of such agreements are provisions in a building or construction contract for determination of questions by the architect or engineer, and in insurance policies for submission to arbitrators to determine the loss, though of course they are not limited to these contracts. An agreement to refer to arbitration, though so far valid that an action can be maintained for its breach,25 will not be specifically enforced,26 and does not oust the jurisdiction of the court; that is, it cannot be set up as a bar to an action brought to determine the very dispute which it was agreed to refer.27 Parties to a contract may, however, make arbitration a condition precedent to a right of action for breach of the contract, and such a condition is valid.28 It is very generally declared that an agreement to submit to arbitration the whole question of liability, and not merely those questions which affect the amount of damages, is void, even as a against public policy. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Eickhoff, 63 Minn. 170, 65 N. W. 351, 30 L. R. A. 586, 56 Am. St. Rep. 464; Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Crays, 76 Minn. 450, 79 N. W. 531. Stipulation in contract entered into between Italian citizens, partly to be performed in Italy and partly in United States, that Italian courts should have exclusive jurisdiction of actions thereon, is not so objectionable, on grounds of public policy, that Massachusetts courts will refuse to give it the validity which it has under the Italian law, under the treaty with Italy, which gives citizens of each country full rights in the courts of the other. Mittenthal v. Mascagni, 1S3 Mass. 19, 66 N. E. 425, 60 L. R. A. 812, 97 Am. St. Rep. 404. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 127; Cent. Dig. §§ 608-615.

25 Livingston v. Railli, 5 El. & B. 132; Munson v. Straits of Dover S. S. Co., 102 Fed. 926, 43 C. C. A. 57, affirming (D. C.) 99 Fed. 787. See Pollock, Cont. (3d Ed.) 308. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 127; Cent. Dig. §§ 608-615.

26 Street v. Rigby, 6 Ves. 815, 818. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 127; Cent. Dig. §§ 608-615.

27 Hurst v. Litchfield, 39 N. Y. 377; Chamberlain v. Railroad Co., 54 Conn. 472, 9 Atl. 244; Dugan v. Thomas, 79 Me. 221, 9 Atl. 354; White v. Railroad Co., 135 Mass. 216; Mentz v. Insurance Co., 79 Pa. 480, 21 Am. Rep. 80; Reed v. Insurance Co., 138 Mass. 572; Allegre v. Insurance Co., 6 Har. & J. (Md.) 408, 14 Am. Dec. 289; Kinney v. Association, 35 W. Va. 385, 14 S. E. 8, 15 L. R. A. 142; Hamilton v. Insurance Co., 137 U. S. 370, 11 Sup. Ct. 133, 34 L. Ed. 708; Lesure Lumber Co. v. Insurance Co., 101 Iowa, 514, 70 N. W. 761; Voluntary Relief Department v. Spencer, 17 Ind. App. 123, 46 N. E. 477; Miles v. Schmidt, 168 Mass. 339, 47 N. E. 115; Fox v. Association, 96 Wis. 390, 71 N. W. 363; Mitchell v. Dougherty, 90 Fed. 639, 33 C. C. A. 205; Kant v. Rice (Ky.) 55 S. W. 202; Hartford Fire Ins, Co. v. Horr, 66 Neb. 555, 92 N. W. 746, 60 L. R. A. 436, 103 Am. St. Rep. 725. But see Raymond v. Insurance Co., 114 Mich. 386, 72 N. W. 254; Robinson v. Templar Lodge, 117 Cal. 370, 49 Pac. 170, 59 Am. St. Rep. 193. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 127; Cent. Dig. §§ 608-615.

28 Scott v. Avery, 5 H. L. Cas. 811; Viney v. Rignold, 20 Q. B. D. 172; President, etc., of Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. Coal Co., 50 N. Y. 250; HAMILTON v. INSURANCE CO., 136 U. S. 242, 10 Sup. Ct. 945, 34 L. Ed. 419.

In the case of mutual associations, such as mutual fire insurance companies and mutual benefit societies, stipulations in the by-laws have been sustained which require a member to submit a claim to arbitration or otherwise to exhaust the remedies provided, as a condition precedent to a resort to the courts;31 and in some jurisdictions provisions have been sustained which make the decision of the arbitrators final and conclusive.32

Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 251; Holmes v. Rlchet, 56 Cal. 307, 38 Am. Rep. 54; Smith v. Railroad Co., 36 N. H. 458; Hudson v. McCartney, 33 Wis. 331; Phœnix Ins. Co. v. Badger, 53 Wis. 283, 10 N. W. 504; Berry v. Carter, 10 Kan. 135; Reed v. Insurance Co., 138 Mass. 572; Hood v. Hartshorn, 100 Mass. 117, 1 Am. Rep. 89; Denver & N. O. Const. Co. v. Stout, 8 Colo. 61, 5 Pac. 627; Commercial Union Assur. Co. v. Hocking, 115 Pa. 407, 8 Atl. 589, 2 Am. St. Rep. 562; Fisher v. Insurance Co., 95 Me. 486, 50 Atl. 282, 85 Am. St. Rep. 428; National Contracting Co. v. Water Power Co., 170 N. Y. 439, 63 N. E. 450. But see Phœnix Ins. Co. v. Zlotky, 66 Neb. 584, 92 N. W. 736. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 127; Cent. Dig. §§ 608-615.

29 See Stephenson v. Insurance Co., 54 Me. 55; Perry v. Cobb, 88 Me. 435, 34 Atl. 278, 49 L. R. A. 389; Jones v. Brown, 171 Mass. 318, 50 N. E. 648; Mitchell v. Dougherty, 90 Fed. 639, 33 C. C. A. 205; J. G. Williams & Bro. v. Branning Mfg. Co., 154 N. C. 205, 70 S. E. 290; Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, 87 U. S. (20 Wall.) 445, 22 L. Ed. 365; Dunton v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 104 Me. 372, 71 Atl. 1037, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1058. See, also, cases cited, supra notes 27, 28. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 227; Cent. Dig. §§ 608-615.

30 Scott v. Avery, 5 H. L. C. 811; Collins v. Locke, 4 App. Cas. 674; Spack-man v. Plumstead Board of Works, 10 App. Cas. 229. See "Arbitration as a condition precedent," by Addison C. Barnham, 11 Harv. Law Rev. 234. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 127; Cent. Dig. §§ 608-615.

31 Jeane v. Grand Lodge, 86 Me. 434, 30 Atl. 70; Smith v. Ocean Castle No. 11, 59 N. J. Law, 198, 35 Atl. 917; Whitty v. McCarthy, 20 R. I. 792, 36 Atl. 129; Myers v. Jenkins, 63 Ohio St. 101, 57 N. E. 1089, 81 Am. St. Rep. 613; Supreme Lodge of the Order of Select Friends v. Raymond, 57 Kan. 647, 47 Pac. 533, 49 L. R. A 373. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 127; Cent. Dig. §§ 608-615.

32 Raymond v. Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 114 Mich. 386, 72 N. W. 254; Van Paucke v. Society, 63 Mich. 378, 29 N. W. 863. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 127; Cent. Dig. §§ 608-615.

Clark Cont.(3d Ed.) - 24