Examples of conditions precedent, the non-performance of which suspends the right of action until such conditions are performed, are often found in building and construction contracts. Under a provision that payment is to be made upon certificates to be given by a third person, such certificate is conclusive in the absence of fraud, bad faith, collusion, evident mistake or waiver.1 A provision that an estimate of work is to be made by an engineer,2 or by an architect,3 and that a certificate must be obtained from such engineer or architect that the work done is done in a proper manner, before the contractor can recover for such work, is generally upheld as a valid covenant.4 The engineer or architect must act fairly and impartially as between the parties;5 and his duties are analogous to those of an arbitrator.6

3 Hunn v. Pennsylvania Institution, 221 Pa. St. 403, 18 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1248, 70 Atl. 812.

4 Davis v. Badders, 05 Ala. 348, 10 So. 422; Gillis v. Cobe, 177 Mass. 584, 59 N. E. 455.

5 McDowell v. Hemming Mfg. Co., 91 N. J. L. 209, 102 Atl. 680.

6 Ordway v. Newburyport, 230 Mass. 306, 119 N. . 863.

7 Ordway v. Newburyport, 230 Mass. 306, 119 N. E. 863.

8 Ordway v. Newburyport, 230 Mass. 306, 119 N. E. 863.

9 See Sec. 2038.

10 Baumgartner v. Renton, 96 Wash. 588, 165 Pac. 484.

11 Baumgartner v. Renton, 96 Wash. 588, 165 Pac. 484.

12 Bateman v. Mapel, 145 Cal. 241, 78 Pac. 734.

13 Bateman v. Mapel, 145 Cal. 241, 78 Pac. 734.

1 Canada, The Queen v. Cimon, 23 Can. S. C. 62.

United States. Martinsburg & Potomac Ry. Co. v. March, 114 U. S. 549, 29 L. ed. 255; Lewis v. Ry., 49 Fed. 708; Summers v. Ry., 49 Fed. 714; Pauly, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Hemphill County, 62 Fed. 698, 10 C. C. A. 595; Mundy v. Ry., 67 Fed. 633; Elliott v. Ry., 74 Fed. 707, 21 C. C. A. 3; Newman v. United States, 81 Fed 122; Casey v. Canton, 253 Fed. 589; Utah Construction Co. v. St. Louis Construction & Equipment Co., 254 Fed. 321.

Alabama. Shriner v. Craft, 166 Ala. 146, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 450, 51 So. 884.

Arkansas. Fitzgerald v. Walker, 55 Ark. 148, 17 S. W. 702; Carlile v. Cor-rigan, 83 Ark. 136, 103 S. W. 620.

Colorado. Sterling v. Hurd, 44 Colo. 436, 98 Pac. 174.

Connecticut. Jones & Hotchkiss Co. v. Davenport, 74 Conn. 418, 50 Atl. 1028.

Illinois. Barbee v. Findlay, 221 III. 251, 77 N. E. 590; Andrew Lohr Bottling Co. v. Ferguson, 223 III. 88, 114 Am. St. Rep. 305, 79 N. E. 35.

Kansas. Edwards v. Hartshorn, 72 Kan. 19, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1050, 82 Pac. 520.

Maryland. Filston Farm Co. v. Henderson, 106 Md. 335, 67 Atl. 228; Pope v. King, 108 Md. 37, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 489, 69 Atl. 417.

Massachusetts. Norcross v. Wyman, 187 Mass. 25, 72 N. E. 347.

Michigan. Young v. Stein, 152 Mich. 310, 125 Am. St. Rep. 412, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 231, 116 N. W. 195; Schneider v. Ann Arbor, 195 Mich. 599, 162 N. W. 110.

Minnesota. Robertson v. Grand Rapids, 96 Minn. 69, 104 N. W. 715.

Mississippi. Standard Const. Co. v. Brantley Granite Co., 90 Miss. 16, 43 So. 300.

Missouri. Chapman v. Ry., 114 Mo. 542, 21 S. W. 858.

Nebraska. Katz-Craig Contracting Co. v. Cozad, 101 Neb. 189, 162 N. W. 490; Howard County v. Pesha, - Neb. -, 172 N. W. 55.

New York. Brady v. New York, 112 N. Y. 480, 2 L. R. A. 751, 20 N. E. 390.

Ohio. Ashley v. Henahan, 56 O. S. 559, 47 N. E. 573.

Pennsylvania. Gonder v. Ry., 171 Pa. St. 492, 33 Atl. 61.

Wisconsin. McAlpine v. Academy, 101 Wis. 468, 78 N. W. 173.

2 United States. Lewis v Ry., 49 Fed. 708; Summers v. Ry., 49 Fed. 714; Mundy v. Ry., 67 Fed. 633; Utah Construction Co. v. St. Louis Construction & Equipment Co., 254 Fed. 321; Barlow v. United States, 35 Ct. Cl. 514 [modified and affirmed, 184 U. S. 123, 46 L. ed. 463].

Illinois. Andrew Lohr Bottling Co. v. Ferguson, 223 III. 88, 114 Am. St. Rep. 305, 79 N. E. 35.

Iowa. Ross v. McArthur, 85 Ia. 203, 52 N. W. 125.

Kansas. Edwards v. Hartshorn, 72 Kan. 19, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1050, 82 Pac. 520.

Missouri. McGregor v. J. A. Ware Construction Co., 188 Mo. 611, 87 S. W. 981.

Virginia. Johnston v. Bunn, 108 Va 490, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1064, 62 S. E. 341.

3 United States. Mitchell v. Dougherty, 86 Fed. 859; Toomey v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 172.

Alabama. Shriner v. Craft, 166 Ala. 146, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 450, 51 So. 884.

Whether authority can be given to the architect or engineer to pass upon questions involving his own default, is a question upon which there is a conflict of authority. It has been held that such power may be conferred upon him,7 but in other jurisdictions it is said that the arbitration clause does not apply to a dispute in which the architect himself is involved.8