Sec 416

The right of free access to courts of justice is inalien able. Hence a condition that a title should be taken without investigation is void, and does not preclude investigation and litigation;1 and so of an agreement that an insured party, if sued in a state court, will not remove the suit into a federal court.2 No binding effect, also, will be awarded to resolutions of corporations by which their members are to renounce the right to appeal from their action to courts of law.3

Sec 417

So strongly is the right of free access to courts of justice maintained in England and in the United States that a party, by agreeing to arbitrate a claim (unless in pursuance of statutory authority), does not preclude himself from afterwards litigating the question in a court of justice.4 Nor can the right to arbitrate be the subject of arbitration. It would be a petitio priticipii to say that an arbitration can determine whether the right of determining is incident to an arbitration.5 And an award, under statute, to bind must comply with the statutory conditions.6

Condition not to have. recourse to law void.

So as to agreement to finally arbitrate.

1 Jones v. Clifford, L. R. 3 C. D. 779.

2 Insurance Co. v. Morse, 20 Wal. 445.

3 Player v. Archer, 2 Sid. 121; London v. Bernadiston, 1 Lev. 16; Ballard v. Bennett, 2 Burr. 778; Middleton's case, Dyer, 333 (a); Austin v. Searing, 16 N. Y. 123; White v. Brownell, 3 Ab. Pr. (N. S.) 318; 4 Ab. Pr. 162.

In Heath v. Gold Exchange, 7 Ab. Pr.(N. S.) 251, it was held that a rule of the Gold Exchange, an unincorporated society, that its members should be bound by the action of the board as to matters in dispute, did not preclude a member (who in the particular case resigned his membership) from obtaining an injunction to preclude the board from adjudicating the question in dispute. See to the same effect, Saffery ex parte, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 561; Leech v. Harris, 2 Brewst. 571; Dos Passos on Stock Brokers, 81. But when the parties to a transaction agree to arbitrate, leaving the question to the decision of a board to which they mutually belong, and attend the proceedings of the arbitrating tribunal, they are bound by the result. Sonneborn v. Lavarello, 2 Hun, 201; Lafond v. Deems, 81 N. Y. 507.

4 Street v. Rigby, 6 Ves. 815; Cooke v. Cooke, L. R. 4 Eq. 77; Hill v. More, 40 Me. 515; Pearl v. Harris, 121 Mass. 390; Hurst v. Litchfield, 39 N. Y. 377; and other cases cited Wald's Pollock 293. See, however, Davis v. Havard, 15 S. & R. 165; Bowen v. Cooper, 7 Watts, 311; and see 2 Pars. on Cont. 707-8.

5 James, L. J., Llanelly R. R. v. N. W. R. R., L. R. 8 Ch. 948.

6 Steele v. Lineberger, 59 Penn. St. 308.