CHICAGO, M. lb ST. P. BY. O0. v. STEWART. 13 rental, and that A. should then have the privilege of buying the improve- ments, or should grant a renewal of the lease at the rental so Hxed, and with the old covenants, and that B. had always appointed partial assessors, so that no unanimous decision could be obtained, and had occupied the premises for ' a number of years since the expiration of the original lease without paying any rent, held, that the bill was proper, and that equity would entertain the suit on the grounds of fraud, account, the prevention of a multiplicity of suits, and because a remedy at law would be neither plain, adequate, nor complete} In New York it is decided that the court will dx the rent, or direct a renewal at the former rent,2 or order a reference to ascertain what the amount of rent should be? In England, in one case, the court refused to substitute the master for the arbitrators, holding that that would be to bind the parties 'contrary to their agreement! In another case, the question arose whether a reference to settle a lease to be made by defendant to plaintiff should be to the master, or to G. under an agreement that certain matters in the lease should be judged by G., or, in case of his death, by some other andcompetent person to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. It was held that the lease must be settled by the master, no steps having previously been taken to se- cure G.’s approval! And where the concurrence of one of the arbitrators was secured by the influence of the tenant’s wife, and the award· was especially favorable to the tenant, the latter was denied specific enforcement! ‘ Valuation in Contracts of Sale. Nor will courts of equity decree specific enforcement of contracts of sale upon a valuation to be made by arbitrators! But where standing timber was sold, and by the contract the quantity was to be determined by referees named, after an examination and measure- ment of the timber one of the referees fell sick, and the others made an es- timate and report, held, that the sale of the timber was the subject of the contract, and that, to prevent a failure as to the principal matter, equity would furnish means of ascertaining the quantity, but would not compel specific execution of the contract} Partnership Contracts to Arbitrate. A. and B., partners, agreed that A. should withdraw, and that, if afterwards B. should desire to retire, A. should have the privilege of purchasing the good-will, stock, etc., to be valued "i11 the usual way " by two valuers, one to be named by A. and another by B., or by an umpire. B. refused to allow his valuer to proceed. Held, that there was no contract thata court of equity would enforce? Nor is such an agree- ment a defense to a suit between partners.*° But where two partners agreed C that upon dissolution one should purchase the share of the other, at a price to be fixed by two arbitrators appointed by each partner, the court held the valuation not of the substance of the agreement, and that it would substitute itself for the arbitrators in order to carry the agreement into effect}! _ Contracts for Work. In contracts with railway and other companies it is usual to stipulate that a reference to the engineer or to some other odicer shall be made a condition precedent to recovery in case of dispute under the con- tract. In such case neither party can sustain an action on the contract *Biddle v. Ramse , 52 Mo. 1 . dell . r , eg, , · ‘ ’ also, Strohmeir v. )2eppenfeld,5g3 IIS: 7.‘F1;dE1‘1?;ar(§{£ BLK:. App. 429. · ». Richardson v. Smith, L. R. ·5 Ch. 648; Uohnsou v. Conger, 14 Abb. Pr. 195. Morse v. Merest,.6 _Me.d. 25;, Smith ,v. Pe- — °Kelso v. Kelly, 1 Daly, 419.. ters, L; R. 20 Eq. 511.— . ._ , ,. . *Agar v. Macklew, 2 Sim.‘& Stu. 418. °Backus' Ap eal,`58 Pa. St. 186. *Gourlay v. Duke of Somerset, 19 Vee. 'Vickers v. lgickers, L. R. 4 Eq. 521.. Jr. 429; _ *°Wel1ington v. Mclntosh,`2 Atk, 569; S)°7Cgh1cl1este1· v. McInt1re, 4 Bligh, (N. Tqttlepjsall v. Grog, 1;:131. V ` ` "Milners v. Gery, 14Ves..T1·.400;‘ Blum- - m ami. re O? T-— gh 5m'