u FEDERAL REPORTER.
reluse to give him employment, A. would purchase the shares of him at a fair
price; that, if the parties could not agree as to what was a fair price, the
same should be determined by arbitrators, whose decision should be binding.
Held that, even if tl1e agreement was not void as against public policy, spe·
ciiic performance of it would not be compelled} Under a mortgage of real
estate to secure a bond containing this stipulation: " That should either party
be dissatisfied with the fulfilling of the above bond, it shall be submitted to
certain persons, (named,) and their decision shall be iinal,"—the mortgagee
may enter forclosure for a breach of the mortgage without resorting to the
opinion of the arbitrators named.? Further, to the effect that a mere agree-
ment to refer to arbitration, where no reference has taken place, cannot take
away the jurisdiction of any court, see Mitchell v. Ha.rri.¢” and Street v.
Rigby!
Insurance Policies. It is not infrequently provided in policies of insurance
that any dispute arising under the policy shall be referred to arbitrators.
Such agreements to arbitrate, it has been decided, do not oust the courts of
their j urisdiction.5 So, where the underwriters refused to pay the loss of the
assured, his right of action was held immediately to accrue, although there
was a clause in the policy that payment was not to be made until 90 days af-
ter proof and adjustment of the loss, and that, in case of dispute, the same
_ might be settled by arbitrators! The action may be sustained without any
oifer to refer;7 although, if there be a reference depending, or made and
determined, it might have been a bar.8 But in Scott v. Aceryg it was decided
that, although an agreement which ousts the courts of their jurisdiction is
illegal and void, yet an agreement in a policy of insurance as to arbitration
was not of that description, since it did not deprive the plaintiff of his right
to sue, but only rendered it a condition precedent that the amount to be re-
covered should be first ascertained, either by the committee or arbitrators.
In Goldstone v. Osbo-m.ei° it was held that the insured might maintain an ac-
tion on such a policy, notwithstanding the condition, when it appeared that
A the insurers denied the general right of the insured to recover, and did not S
_ merely question the amount of damage. So he may, if the insurance com·
` pany waive the right to a submission to arbitration, as by taking possession
and repairing the thing insured.¤
Valuati0ns—Ren.ewal·of Leases. It is not uncommon to insert in leases
stipulations for a renewal upon a rent to be a percentage ofa valuation by
appraisers or arbitrators. The parties to such a lease do not waive the juris-
diction of the ordinary tribunals.1” But in these cases the courts will not
compel the parties to name arbitrators? It is not meant to say, however,.
that the courts will not enforce contracts to renew leases; on the con-
trary, many- cases decide that the courts will compel a renewal of such
. contracts. Thus, where A. filed a bill in equity alleging that he had de-
mised certain premises to B., with the agreement that near the end of the
lease A. and B. were each to appoint an assessor, and the assessors a third. who
should unanimously assess the value of the improvements and the yearly
A Noyes v. Marsh, 123 Mass. 286. *8 W., H. & G. 497. _
’Hil1 v. More, 40 Me. 515, i°2 Car. dz P. 550.
*2 Ves. Jr. 129. ‘ ¤Cobb v. N; E. M. Ins. Co. 6 Gray, 193.
*6 Ves. Jr. 814. V ¤ Gray v. Wilson, 4 Watts, 39.
*Allegre v. Maryland Ins. Co. 6 Har. dt ”Johnson v. Conger, 14 Abb. Pr. 195;
J. 408; Robinson v. George’s Ins. Co. 17 Me. Kelso v. Kelly, 1Daly, 419 ; Biddle v. Ram-
131; Kill v. Hollister, l Wils. 129; Ames- se , 52 Mo. 153; Ho kins v. Gilman, 22
bury v. Bowditch Ins. Co. 6 Gray, 596. Wis. 476 ; Gresson v. Eeteltas, 17 N.Y."491;
*Allegre v. Maryland Ins. Co., supra. Gourlay v. Duke of Somerset, 19 Ves. Jr.
" Robinson v. George’s Ins. C0. 17 Me. 429; Agar v. Macklew, 2 Sim. At Stu. 418;
181. Strohmeir v. Zeppenfeld, 3 Mo. A p. 429;
· • Kill v. Hollister, 1 Wils. 129. Chichester v. Mclutire, 4 Bligh, (bi: S.) 78.