Under a specific provision therefor, the obtaining of such certificate is a condition precedent to any recovery by the contractor upon his contract unless the obtaining of such certificate is excused or waived in some manner.1 Under a contract to refer disputes arising out of a construction contract to a designated person, a refusal to submit such disputes precludes recovery by the contractor.2 Thus under a building contract, a provision that the architect shall decide the value of alterations,3 or shall certify the progress of the work done, on which certificate installments of the contract price are to be paid,4 or providing for his deciding other questions in dispute between the parties, makes such decision conclusive if it is made in good faith and not under evident mistake.5 The same principles apply to contracts for constructing waterworks.6 An approval by a state board,7 or by a highway inspector, 8 may be made a condition precedent to recovery on the contract So if a contract of sale to the United States provides for payment "upon producing duplicate specified certificates of the commanding officer/' no recovery can be had unless such certificates are produced or a legal excuse shown for not producing them.9

Illinois. Barbee v. Findlay, 221 III. 251, 77 N. E. 500; Bloomington Hotel Co. v. Garthwait, 227 Ill. 613, 81 N. E. 714.

Maryland. Pope v. King, 108 Md. 37, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 489, 60 Atl. 417.

Massachusetts. Hebert v. Dewey, 191 Mass. 403, 77 N. E. 822; Loftus v. Jorjorian, 104 Mass. 165, 80 N. E. 235; Hennebique Const. Co. v. Boston Cold Storage & Terminal Co., 230 Mass. 456, L. R. A. 1018F, 374, 119 N. E. 948.

Michigan. Kelly v. Muskegon, 110 Mich. 520, 68 N. W. 282; Young v. Stein, 152 Mich. 310, 125 Am. St. Rep. 412, 116 N. W. 105.

Nebraska. Anderson v. Imhoff, 34 Neb. 335, 51 N. W. 854.

Oregon. Hoskins v. Powder Land ft Irrigation Co., 00 Or. 217, 176 Pac. 124.

4 Pope v. King, 108 Md. 37, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 480, 60 Atl. 417; Johnston v. Bunn, 108 Va. 400, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1064, 62 S. E. 341.

Contra, if the contract is for conclusive determination. Fulton County v. Gibson, 158 Ind. 471, 63 N. E. 082. Or is for arbitration in advance upon the question whether the agreement has been violated Jones v. Brown, 171 Mass. 318, 50 N E 648; Schneider v. Ann Arbor, 195 Mich. 500, 162 N. W. 110.

5 Lantry Contracting Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 102 Kan. 799, 172 Pac. 527.

6 Lantry Contracting Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 102 Kan. 799, 172 Pac. 527.

On the question of the duties of the arbitrator, see Sec. 2525 and 2535 et seq.

7 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. ▼. Riverside Bridge Co., 247 Fed. 625.

8 McCloskey v. Marks, 263 Pa. St. 441, 106 Atl. 729.

On this subject in Scotch law BOO. The Interpretation of Reference Clauses in Contracts, by R. D. Melville, 16 Juridical Review, 207.

1 United States. Bush v. Jones, 144 Fed. 942, 75 C. C. A. 582, 6 L. R. A. (N.S.) 774; Casey v. Canton, 253 Fed.

589; Utah Construction Co. v. St Louis Construction & Equipment Co., 254 Fed. 321.

Alabama. First National Bank v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 145 Ala. 335, 117 Am. St. Rep. 45, 5 L. R. A. (N.S.> 418, 40 So. 415.

Arkansas. Hot Springs, etc., Ry. Co. v. Maher, 48 Ark. 522, 3 S. W. 639; Car-lile v. Corrigan, 83 Ark. 136, 103 S. W. 620.

California. Coplew v. Durand, 153 Cal 278, 95 Pac. 38.

Illinois. Packard v. Van Schoick, 58 III 70; Coey v. Lehman, 70 III. 173; Barney v. Giles, 120 III. 154, 11 N. E. 206; Stose v. Heissler, 120 Ill 433, 60 Am Rep 563, 11 N. E. 161; Barbee v. Findlay, 221 I11 251, 77 X. E. 590; Bloomington Hotel Co. v. Garthwait, 227 Ill 613, 81 N. E. 714

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

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. Gillis v. Cobe, 177 Mass 584, 50 N. E. 455; Hebert v. Dewey, 101 Mass. 403, 77 N. E. 822; Loftus v. Jorjorian, 104 Mass. 165, 80 N. E. 235; Hennebique Construction Co. v. Boston Cold Storage & Terminal Co., 230 Mass. 456, L. R A. 1918F, 374. 119 N. E 948; Marsch v. Southern New England R. Corp., 230 Mass. 483, 120 N. E. 120.

Michigan. Hanley v. Walker, 70 Mich. 607. 8 L. R. A. 207, 45 N. W. 57; Young v. Stein, 152 Mich. 310, 125 Am. St. Rep. 412, 116 N. W. 105.

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

Montana. McGlautlin v. Wormser, 28 Mont. 177, 72 Pac. 428.

New Jersey. Kirtland v. Moore, 40 N. J. Eq. 106, 2 Atl. 260; Sheyer v. Pinkerton Const. Co. (N. J.), 50 Atl 462.

New York. Smith v. Briggs, 3 Denio (N Y.) 73; Smith v. Brady, 17 X. Y. 173, 72 Am. Dec. 442; Wangler v. Swift, 90 X. Y. 38; National Contracting Co. v. Hudson River Water Power Co., 102 N. Y. 209, 84 X. E. 965.

Ohio. Ashley v. Henahan, 56 O. S. 550, 47 X. E. 573.

Pennsylvania. O'Reilly v. Kernes, 52 Pa. St. 214; Hunn v. Pennsylvania Institution. 221 Pa. St. 403, 18 L. R. A. (N.S) 1248, 70 Atl. 812; McCloskey v. Marks, 441 Pa. St. 263, 106 Atl. 729.

Texas. Boettler v. Tendick, 73 Tex. 488, 5 L. R. A. 270, 11 S. W. 497; Scott v. Construction Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 55 S. W. 37.

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

West Virginia. McConnell v. Hewes, 50 W. Va. 33, 40 S. E. 436; Charleston Lumber Co. v. Friedman, 64 W. Va. 151, 61 S. E. 815.

Wisconsin. Wendt v. Vogel, 87 Wis. 462, 58 X. W. 764; Foster Lumber Co. v. Atkinson, 94 Wis. 578, 69 N. W. 347; Burnham v. Milwaukee, 100 Wis. 55, 75 X. W. 1014; John Pritzlaff Hardware Co. v. Berghoefer, 103 Wis. 359, 79 N. W. 564; Coorsen v. Ziehl, 103 Wis. 381, 79 N. W. 562.

2 Meyers v. Construction Co., 20 Or. 603, 27 Pac. 584; Fulton v. Peters, 137 Pa. St. 613, 20 Atl. 936.

3 Seim v. Krause, 13 S. D. 530, 83 N. W. 583; East Tennessee, etc., Ry. v. Mfg. Co., 95 Tenn. 538, 32 S. W. 635.

Sec. 2628. Question as to which determination of architect or engineer final The certificate of the architect may, by the terms of the contract, be made conclusive as to the performance in gen-eral;1 as to the quality of materials furnished,2 even where the contract does not make definite provision as to such quality;3 as to quantities;4 as to the allowance of extra time for performance;5 as to the compensation to be made for extra work;6 as to change in price due to alteration in plans,7 and as to the cost of completion where the owner completes the contract under a clause permitting him so to do in the event of default by the contractor.9

4 Ashland, etc., Co. v. Shores, 105 Wis. 122, 81 N. W. 136.

5 Gowen v. Pierson, 166 Pa. St. 258, 31 Atl. 83.

6 Covington v. Limerick (Ky.), 40 S. W. 254.

7 Winters v. Ramsey, 4 Ida. 303, 39 Pac. 193.

8 Jones v. Marlborough, 70 Conn. 583, 40 Atl. 460.

9 United States v. Robeson, 34 U. S. (9 Pet.) 319, 9 L. ed. 142.

1 England. Tullis v. Jacson [1892], 3 Ch. 441.

Arkansas. Hot Springs Ry. Co. v. Maher, 48 Ark. 522, 3 S. W. 639; Boston Store v. Schleuter, 88 Ark. 213, 114 S. W. 242.

Illinois. Stose v. Heissler, 120 Ill. 433, 60 Am. Rep. 563, 11 N. E. 161.

Massachusetts. White v. Abbott, 188 Mass. 99, 74 N. E. 305.

Michigan. Hanley v. Walker, 79 Mich. 607, 8 L. R. A. 207, 45 N. W. 57.

Missouri. Williams v. The Chicago, Santa Fe & California Ry. Co., 112 Mo. 463, 34 Am. St. Rep. 403, 20 S. W. 631.

New Jersey. Chism v. Schipper, 51

N. J. L. 1,14 Am. St. Rep. 668, 2 L.R. A. 544, 16 AtL 316.

New York. Wangler v. Smith, 90 N. Y. 38.

Pennsylvania. O'Reilly v. Kerns, 52 Pa. St. 214.

Texas. Boettler v. Tendick, 73 Tex. 488, 5 L. R. A. 270, 11 S. W. 497.

Wisconsin. Tetz v. Butterfield, 54 Wis. 242, 41 Am. Rep. 29, 11 N. W. 531.

2 Arkansas, Brashears v. Garland School Dist., 133 Ark. 599, 202 S. W. 234.

California. Bateman v. Mapel, 146 CaL 241, 78 Pac. 734.

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

Oregon. Seaside v. Randies, - Or. - , 180 Pac. 319.

Pennsylvania. Payne v. Roberts, 214 Pa. St. 568, 64 AtL 86.

Washington. Stimson Mill Co. v. Feigenson Engineering Co., 100 Wash. 172, 170 Pac. 573.

So as to classification of material which is excavated. McGregor v. J. A. Ware Construction Co., 188 Mo. 611, 87 S. W. 981.

The contract may provide that the architect shall determine the meaning thereof.9 Under such a clause his decision that a stipulation for damages for each day's delay is a covenant for liquidated damages, and not for a penalty, is conclusive.10

By the express terms of the contract, the certificate may be con-elusive as to all questions arising under the contract, including measurements, valuations, breach, payments, and the like.11 If the contract makes the decision of the architect or engineer final and conclusive upon the parties as to all questions arising under such contract, the determination of the engineer is final and conclusive in the absence of fraud, bad faith, collusion, evident mistake, and the like.12

3 Brashears v. Garland School Dist., 133 Ark. 599, 202 S. W. 234.

4 National Contracting Co. v. Hudson River Water Power Co., 170 N. Y. 439, 63 N. E. 450; Hoskins v. Powder Land & Irrigation Co., 90 Or 217, 176 Pac 124.

5 Firestone Tire ft Rubber Co. v. Riverside Bridge Co., 247 Fed. 625,160 C. C. A. 35; Toomey Bros. v. United States, 49 Ct. CI 172; Bloomington Hotel Co. v. Garthwait, 227 Ill. 613, 81 N. E. 714; Thompson v. St. Charles County, 227 Mo. 220, 126 S. W. 1044; Charleston Lumber Co. v. Friedman, 64 W. Va. 151, 61 S. E. 815.

6 North American Ry. Construction Co. v. R. E. McMath Surveying Co., 116 Fed. 169; Hennebique Const. Co. v. Boston Cold Storage ft Terminal Co., 230 Mass. 456, 119 N. E. 948; Guthat v. Gow, 95 Mich. 527, 55 N. W. 442; Shey-er v. Pinkerton Const. Co. (N. J.), 59 Atl. 462.

7 Conners v. United States, 130 Fed. 609: Seim v. Krause, 13 S. D. 530, 83 N. W. 583.

8 White v. Abbott, 188 Mass. 99, 74 N. E. 305.

9 United States. Merrill - Ruckgaber Co. v United States, 241 U. S. 387, 60 L. ed. 1058 [affirming judgment, Merrill-Ruckgaber Co. v. United States, 49 Ct Cl 553].

Illinois. Hennessy v. Metzger, 152 Ill. 505, 43 Am. St. Rep. 267, 38 N. E. 1058.

Massachusetts. Norcross v. Wyman, 187 Mass. 25, 72 N. E. 347; Marsch v. Southern New England R. Corp., 230 Mass. 483, 120 N. E. 120.

Virginia. Rosenberg v. Turner, - Va. - , 98 S. E. 763.

Wisconsin. Keachie v. Starkweather Drainage District, 168 Wis. 298, 170 N. W. 236.

to Hennessey v. Metzger, 152 Ill. 505, 43 Am. St. Rep. 267, 38 N. E. 1058.

11 Marsch v. Southern New England R. Corp., 230 Mass. 483, 120 N. E. 120.

12 Merrill-Ruckgaber Co. v. United States, 241 U. S. 387, 60 L. ed. 1058 [affirming judgment, Merrill-Ruckgaber Co. v. United States, 49 Ct. CL 5531;