Provisions of this sort are frequently found in policies of insurance which provide that in case of loss the amount of such loss may be fixed by arbitration or appraisement. Such a provision is a condition precedent in the sense that an insured who has refused to comply with such provision can not ignore it and maintain an action upon the policy to recover the amount of loss.1 In ease of disagreement as to the amount of loss, the insured must demand appraisement as a condition precedent.2 Contracts of insurance in benefit associations frequently provide that no action can be brought upon the contract until the claimant has first resorted to the tribunals of the company which issued such insurance,3 or that the claimant must exhaust the means of appeal provided for by such contract,4 or that no recovery can be had until after arbitration, and then only for the amount awarded by arbitration.5

5 Baltimore, etc., Ry. v. Scholes, 14 Ind. App. 524, 56 Am. St. Rep. 307, 43 N. E. 156; Fidelity and Casualty Go. v. Crays, 76 Minn. 450, 79 N. W. 531; Wortman v. Montana Central Ry, 22 Mont. 266, 56 Pac. 316.

6 Wortman v. Ry., 22 Mont. 266, 56 Pac. 316.

7 Baltimore, Ohio and Chicago, etc., Ry. v. Scholes, 14 Ind. App. 524, 56 Am. St. Rep. 307, 43 N. E. 156.

8 Fidelity and Casualty Co. v. Eick-hoff, 63 Minn. 170, 56 Am. St. Rep. 464, 30 L. R. A. 586, 65 N. W. 351; Fidelity and Casualty Co. v. Crays, 76 Minn. 450, 70 N. W. 531.

9 Guarantee Co. v. Pitts, 78 Miss. 837, 30 So. 758.

Contra, Guarantee Co. v. Charles, 02 S. Car. 282, 75 S. E. 387.

10 Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Nord-marken, 32 N. D. 10, 155 N. W. 669.

1 England. Spurrier v. La Cloche [1902], A. C. 446.

United States. Hamilton v. Liverpool, London & Globe Ins. Co.. 136 U. S. 242, 34 L. ed. 419.

Alabama. Headley v. Aetna Ins. Co., - Ala. -, 80 So. 466.

California. Old Saucelito, etc., Co. v. The Commercial Union Assurance Co., 66 Cal. 253, 5 Pac. 232; Adams v. South British and National Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 70 Cal. 198, 11 Pac 627; Carroll v. Girard Fire Ins. Co., 72 Cal. 297, 13 Pac. 863.

Georgia. Southern Mutual Ins. Co. v. Turnley, 100 Ga. 206, 27 S. E. 975.

Iowa. Zalesky v. Home Ins. Co., 102 Ia. 613, 71 N. W. 566; George Dee & Sons Co. v. Kansas City Fire Ins. Co., 104 Ia. 167, 73 N. W. 504.

Maine. Perry v. Cobb, 88 Me. 435, 49 L. R. A. 389, 34 Atl. 278.

Maryland. Caledonian Ins. Co. v. Traub, 83 Md. 524, 35 Atl. 13.

Massachusetts. Hutchinson v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 153 Mass. 143, 10 L. R. A. 558, 26 N. E. 439; Lamson Consolidated Store Service Co. v. Prudential Fire Ins. Co., 171 Mass. 433, 50 N. E. 943; Second Society of Univeraalists v. Royal Ins. Co., 221 Mass. 518, 109 N. E. 384.

Michigan. Chippewa Lumber Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 80 Mich. 116, 44 N. W. 1055.

Minnesota. Gasser v. Sun Fire Office, 42 Minn. 315, 44 N. W. 252; Mos-ness v. German-American Ins. Co., 50 Minn. 341, 52 N. W. 932; Hamberg v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 68 Minn. 335, 71 N. W. 388.

Hew Jersey. Wolff v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 50 N. J. L. 453, 14 Atl. 561.

North Carolina. Pioneer Mfg. Co. v. Phoenix Assurance Co., 106 N. Car. 28, 10 S. E. 1057.

North Dakota. Leu v. Commercial Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 15 N. D. 360, 107 N. W. 59.

Ohio. Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Car-nahan, 63 O. S. 258, 58 N. E. 805.

Texas. Scottish Union & National Ins. Co. v. Clancy, 71 Tex. 5, 8 S. W. 630.

Wisconsin. Chapman v. Ins. Co., 89 Wis. 572, 28 L. R. A. 405, 62 N. W. 422; Montgomery v. American Central Ins. Co., 108 Wis. 146, 84 N. W. 175.

Contra, German-American Insurance Co. v. Etherton, 25 Neb. 505, 41 N. W. 406; Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Hon, 66 Neb. 555, 103 Am. St. Rep. 725, 60 L. R. A. 436, 92 N. W. 746.

2 Headley v. Aetna Ins. Co., - Ala. -, 80 So. 466; Graham v. German-American Ins. Co., 75 O. S. 374, 79 N. E. 030 [overruling, Grand Rapids Ins. Co. v. Finn, 60 O. S. 513, 54 N. E. 545].

3 Georgia. Harrington v. Working-men's Benevolent Association, 70 Ga. 340.

Indiana. Bauer v. Sampson Lodge, 102 Ind. 262, 1 N. E. 571; Supreme Council, etc., v. Forsinger, 125 Ind. 52, 21 Am. St. Rep. 196, 9 L. R. A. 501, 25 N. E. 129.

Maine. Jeane v. Grand Lodge, etc, 86 Me. 434, 30 Atl. 70. Montana. Cotter v. Grand Lodge, etc., 23 Mont. 82, 57 Pac. 650.

New Hampshire. Levy v. Iron Hall, 67 N. H. 503, 38 Atl 18.

Ohio. Myers v. Jenkins, 63 O. S. 101, 81 Am. St. Rep. 613, 57 N. E. 1089.

4 Levy v. Magnolia Lodge, 110 Cal 297, 42 Pac. 887; Supreme Council v. Forsinger, 125 Ind. 52, 21 Am. St. Rep. 106, 9 L. R. A. 501, 25 N. E. 129; Myers v. Jenkins, 63 O. S. 101, 81 Am. St. Rep. 613, 57 N. E. 1089.

5 Hembeau v. Knights, 101 Mich. 161, 45 Am. St. Rep. 400, 49 L. R. A. 592, 59 N. W. 417; Patrons' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Attorney General, 166 Mich. 438, 131 N. W. 1119.

A contract between landlord and tenant may provide for fixing the value of improvements by arbitration or appraisement.6 Adjoining property owners may agree that the damage done by trespassing cattle may be settled by arbitration.7