
    RANDALL et al., Respondents, v. THE LIVERPOOL AND LONDON AND GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
    See syllabi and opinions in the cases of Randall et al. v. The American Fire Ins. Co. ante, page 340, and Randall et al. v. The Phœnix Ins. Co. ante, page 362.
    
      Appeal from First Judicial District, Lewis and Clarke County.
    
    
      The cause was tried before Galbraith, J., sitting in place of Hunt, J. Plaintiffs had judgment below.
    
      Bach & Buck, and B. P. Carpenter, for Appellant.
    
      Toole & Wallace, for Respondents.
    The Liverpool, London, and Globe policy not only provides for the submission of differences as to the “ special question of loss or damage,” but also, and as a part of the same clause, “ as to any question, matter, or thing concerning or arising out of this insurance,” so that, disregarding the question of the jurisdiction of territorial courts under the Organic Act, this clause of the policy is either void in its entirety, or only valid as to the single question of “loss or damage.” (German-American Ins. Co. v. Etherton, 25 Neb. 505; Gray v. Wilson, 4 Watts, 39; Stone v. Dennis, 3 Port. 221; Robinson v. Georges Ins. Co. 17 Me. 131; 35 Am. Dec. 239; Hill v. More, 40 Me. 515; Rowe v. Williams, 97 Mass. 163; Hurst v. Litchfield, 39 N. Y. 377; Allegre v. Maryland Ins. Co. 6 Har. & J. 408; 14 Am, Dec. 289; 11 Am. & Eng. Encycl. of Law, pp. 353, 354, and notes; 1 Phillips on Insurance, p. 8.)
   Harwood, J.

This action was brought to recover fifteen hundred dollars insurance, upon one of the policies mentioned in the case of J. L. Randall et al. v. The American Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, ante, page 340. The pleadings, proofs, and points presented on appeal are practically the same in this case as those considered in the case above mentioned, and the case of Randall et al. v. The Phœnix Ins. Co., just determined by this court.

On the authority of those cases and the conclusions therein reached, it is hereby ordered that the judgment and the order of the lower court overruling defendant’s motion for new trial be, and the same are hereby affirmed with costs.

Blake, C. J., and De Witt, J., concur.  