In many of the United States a doctrine similar to that adopted by the English courts seems to prevail,60 and in this

60 Cf. Woodall v. Pearl Assurance Co., [1919] 1 K. B. 693.

61 Hamilton v. Home Ins. Co., 137 U. S. 370, 34 L. Ed. 708,11 S. Ct. 133; Crossley v. Connecticut Ins. Co., 27 Fed. 30; Kahnweiler v. Phenix Ins. Co., 67 Fed. 483, 14 C. C. A. 485, rev'g 57 Fed. 562; Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 59 Fed. 258, 8 C. C. A. 114; Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Alvord, 61 Fed. 752, 9 C. C. A. 623; Old Saucelito Co. v. Commercial Assn. Co., 66 Cal. 253, 5 Pac. 232; Adams v. South British Ins. Co., 70 Cal. 198, 11 Pac. 627; Carroll v. Girard Ins. Co., 72 Cal. 297, 13 Pac. 863; Davisson v. East Whittier Land etc. Co., 153 Cal. 81, 96 Pac. 88; Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Riley, 7 Col. 494, 4 Pac. 785; Denver, etc., Co. v. Stout, 8 Col. 61, 5 Pac. 627; Union Pacific Co. v. Anderson, 11 Col. 293, 18 Pac. 24; Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 28 Fla. 209, 10 So. 297; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Creighton, 51 Ga. 95; Southern Ins. Co. v. Turnley, 100 Ga. 296, 27 S. E. 975; Birmingham Ins. Co. v. Pulver, 126 11I. 329, 338, 18 N. E. 804, 9 Am. St. Rep. 598; Lesure Lumber Co. v. Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 101 Iowa, 514, 70 N. W. 761; Zalesky v. Home Ins. Co., 102 Iowa, 613, 71 N. W. 566; Read v. State Ins. Co., 103 Iowa, 307, 72 N. W. 665, 64 Am. St. Rep. 180; Dee r. Key City Fire Ins.

Co., 104 Iowa, 167, 73 N. W. 594; Fisher v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 95 Me. 486, 50 Atl. 282, 85 Am. St. Rep. 428; Chippewa Lumber Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 80 Mich. 116, 44 N. W. 1055; Guthat v. Gow, 95 Mich. 527, 55 N. W. 442; Boots v. Steinberg, 100 Mich. 134, 58 N. W. 657; Weggner v. Green-stine, 114 Mich. 310, 72 N. W. 170; Gasser v. Sun Fire Office, 42 Minn. 315, 44 N. W. 252; Mosness v. German-American Ins. Co., 50 Minn. 341, 52 N. W. 932; Levine v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 66 Minn. 138, 68 N. W. 855; Mecartney v. Guardian Trust Co., 274 Mo. 224, 202 S. W. 1131; Wolff v. Liverpool Ins. Co., 50 N. J. L. 453, 14 Atl. 561; Anderson v. Odd Fellows Hall, 86 N. J. L. 271, 90 Atl. 1007; President, etc., Delaware & H. C. Co. v. Penn. Coal Co., 50 N. Y. 250; Uhrig v. Williamsburg Ins. Co., 106 N. Y. 362, 4 N. E. 745; Seward v. Rochester, 109 N. Y. 164, 16 N. E. 348; National Contracting Co. v. Hudson River Water Power Co., 170 N. Y. 439, 63 N. E. 450; Keeffe v. National Soc., 4 N. Y. App. Div. 392, 38 N. Y. S. 854; Spink v. Cooperative Fire Ins. Co., 25 N. Y. App. Div. 484, 49 N. Y. S. 730; Van Note v. Cook, 55 N. Y. App. Div. 55, 66 N. Y. S. 1003; Pioneer Mfg. Co. v. Phoenix Assn. Co., 106 N. C. 28,10 S. E. 1057 (see, however, connection should be considered the numerous cases where the certificate of an architect or engineer is made a condition precedent to any right to recover for building or other work.61 In many States, however, the distinction is taken between an agreement to arbitrate the whole question of liability which is held ineffectual even though expressed in the form of a condition precedent, and an agreement which merely provides for the determination of a particular fact as for the valuation of a loss or injury.62

Pioneer Mfg. Co. v. Phoenix Assn. Co., 110 N. C. 176, 14 S. E. 731, 28 Am. St. Rep. 673; Pretsfelder v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 116 N. C. 401, 21 8. E. 302); Monongahela Nav. Co. v. Fenlon, 4 W. & 8. 205; Reynolds v. Caldwell, 51 Pa. 298; Gowen v. Piereon, 166 Pa. 258, 31 Atl. 83; Chandley v. Borough of Cambridge Springs, 200 Pa. 230, 232, 49 Atl. 772; Jones v. Enoree Power Co., 92 8. C. 263, 75 8. E. 452, Ann. Cas. 1914 B. 293; Scottish Ins. Co. v. Clancy, 71 Tex. 5, 8 8. W. 630; American Ins. Co. v. Bass, 90 Tex. 380, 382, 38 S. W. 1119; [cf. Queiroli v. Whitesides (Tex. Civ. App.), 206 S. W. 122]; VanHorne v. Watrous, 10 Wash. 525,39 Pac. 136; Zindorf Co. v. Western Co., 27 Wash. 31, 67 Pac. 374; Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co. v. Purcell Safe Co., 81 Wash. 592, 142 Pac. 1153, 86 Wash. 694, 150 Pac. 1162; Calhoun v. Pederson, 85 Wash. 630, 149 Pac. 25 (cf. Winsor v. German Soc, 31 Wash. 365, 72 Pac. 66); Law-son v. Williamson Coal & Coke Co.,

61 W. Va. 669, 57 8. E. 258; Chapman v. Rockford Ins. Co., 89 Wis. 572, 62 N. W. 422, 28 L. R. A. 405. See also Randall v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 10 Mont. 362, 25 Pac. 960; Kahn v. Traders' Ins. Co., 4 Wyo. 419, 34 Pac. 1059,

62 Am. St. Rep. 47. In a number of these cases, however, the court also laid stress on the fact that the agreement for arbitration related not to the whole question of liability under the contract, but merely to the amount of damages.

61 See supra, Sec.(794-798, and especially Keachie v. Starkweather Drainage Dist. (Wis.), 170 N. W. 236.

62Dickson Mfg. Co. v. American Locomotive Co., 119 Fed. 488; Jefferson Fire Ins. Co. v. Bierce, 183 Fed. 588; United States Asphalt Co. v. Trinidad Lake Petroleum Co., 222 Fed. 1006; Aktieselskabet Ac. Kom-pagniet v. Rederiaktiebolaget Atlanten, 232 Fed. 403,250 Fed. 935,163 C. C. A. 185 (cert, granted 248 U. 8. 553, 39 S. Ct. 8); The Eros, 241 Fed. 186, 251 Fed. 45, 163 C. C. A. 295; Western Assoc. Co. v. Hall, 112 Ala. 318, 20 So. 447, 120 Ala. 547, 24 So. 936; Headley v. AEtna Ins. Co. (Ala.), 80 So. 466; Bauer v. Samson Lodge, 102 Ind. 262, 1 N. E. 571; Supreme Council v. Garrigus, 104 Ind. 133, 3 N. E. 818, 54 Am. Rep. 298; Louisville, etc, Ry. Co. v. Donnegan, 111 Ind. 179, 12 N. E. 153; Supreme Council tr. Fox-singer, 125 Ind. 52, 25 N. E. 129, 9 L. R. A. 501, 21 Am. St. Rep. 196; McCoy v. Able, 131 Ind. 417, 30 N. E. 528, 31 N. E. 453; Ison v. Wright, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1368,55 S. W. 202; Robinson v. Georges Ins. Co., 17 Me. 131, 35 Am. Dec. 239; Stephenson v. Pis-cataqua Ins. Co., 54 Me. 55 (but see Fisher v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 95 Me. 486, 50 Atl. 282, 85 Am. St. Rep. 428; White v. Middlesex R. Co., 135 Mass. 216; Miles v. Schmidt, 168 Mass. 339, 47 N. E. 115 (cf. Lamson Co. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 171 Mass. 433, 50 N. E. 943, and see also Marsch v. Southern New Eng. R. Corp., 230 Mass. 483,

Whatever disagreement between the decisions there may be it is at least generally held that a stipulation in form collateral to refer all matters in dispute under a contract to arbitrators is no bar to an action at law for breach of the contract.63

Even though the provision for arbitration be in the form of a condition precedent, and the validity of the condition be recognized, it may be excused by waiver or prevention, like any other condition.64

120 N. E. 120); Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Zlotky, 66 Neb. 684, 92 N. W. 736; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Hon, 66 Neb. 555, 92 N. W. 746, 103 Am. St. Rep. 725; Leach v. Republic Ins. Co., 58 N. H. 245; Wyckoff v. Woarms, 118 N. Y. App. Div. 699,103 N. Y. S. 650; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Stankard, 56 Ohio St. 224, 46 N. E. 577, 49 L. R. A. 381, 60 Am. St. Rep. 745; Myers v. Jenkins, 63 Ohio St. 101, 57 N. E. 1089, 81 Am. St. Rep. 613; Ball v. Doud, 26 Oreg. 14, 37 Pac. 70; Gray v. Wilson, 4 Watts, 39; Commercial Union Assoc, v. Hocking, 115 Fa. 407, 8 Atl. 589, 2 Am. St. Rep. 562; Yost v. Dwelling House Ins. Co., 179 Pa. 381, 36 Atl. 317; Penn Plate Glass Co. v. Spring Garden Ins. Co., 189 Pa. 255, 42 Atl. 138; Needy v. German-American Ins. Co., 197 Pa. 460, 47 Atl. 739; Pepin v. Societe St. Jean Baptiste, 23 R. I. 81, 49 Atl. 387, 91 Am. St. Rep. 620; Daniher v. Grand Lodge, 10 Utah, 110, 37 Pac. 245; Kinney v. Baltimore, etc., Assoc, 35 W. Va. 385, 14 S. E. 8, 15 L. R. A. 142 (conf. Baer's Sons Grocer Co. v. Cutting Fruit Packing Co., 42 W. Va. 359, 26 S. E. 191). See also Edwards v. Aberayron Ins. Soc, 1 Q. B. D. 563, and the Michigan, Minnesota, and New York decisions cited in the preceding note.

63 Memphis Trust Co. v. Brown-Ketchum Iron Works, 166 Fed. 398, 93 C. C. A. 162, cert, denied 214 U. S. 515, 63 L. Ed. 1064, 29 S. Ct. 697; Lawrence v. White, 131 Ga. 840, 63 S. E. 631, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 966, 15 Ann. Cas. 1097; Crilly v;. Philip Rinn Co., 135

HI. App. 198; Anderson v. Odd Fellows Hall, 86 N. J. L. 271, 90 Atl. 1007; Lawson v. Williamson Coal & Coke Co., 61 W. Va. 669, 57 S. E. 258. See also cases in previous notes to this section.

In Brocklehurst & Potter Co. v. Marsch, 225 Mass. 3, 113 N. E. 646, 649, the court said: "The stipulation as to arbitration is not made a condition precedent to a right to recover upon the contract. It is distinct and severable from the agreement to pay a pro rata share of the amount received by the defendant. The phrase of the contract in this respect is markedly different, for example, from that of the standard form of insurance. St. 1907, c. 576, Sec. 59 (page 886); Second Society of Universalists v. Royal Ins. Co., 221 Mass. 518, 525, 526, 109 N. E. 384. It is in legal effect like those found in Reed v. Washington Insurance Co., 138 Mass. 572; Norcross Bros. v. Yose, 199 Mass. 81, 94, 85 N. E. 468; and Derby Desk Co. v. Connors Bros. Const. Co., 204 Mass. 461, 467, 90 N. E. 543. See Hanley v. JCtna Ins. Co., 215 Mass. 425, 429, 102 N. E. 641.

"The contract in this respect is plainly distinguishable from those before the court in Hood v. Hartshorn, 100 Mass. 117, 1 Am. Rep. 89, and Old Colony St. Ry. v. Brockton & Plymouth St. Ry., 218 Mass. 84,105 N. E. 866." But see Pacaud v. Waite, 218 111. 138, 75 N. E. 779, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 672; Deibeikis v. Link-Belt Co., 261 111. 454, 104 N. E. 211, Ann. Cas. 1915 A. 241.

64 Tubbs v. Delillo, 19 Cal. App. 612,