Court Opinion

ID: 8142269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 20:14:35.565487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:32.970921
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Harlan,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
This statement of the controlling facts is quite sufficient to show that the judgment below was right. We perceive no ground whatever for a judgment against the United States. Nothing done under the act of March 2d, 1901 created any obligation upon the part of the Secretary of Agriculture,. as representing the United States, to proceed under the plans made by the appellants for the.construction of the building *348i at erred to in that act. The “Programme” of competition. ■ devised, under that act, by the Architect of the Treasury, under the direction of the Secretary, contemplated the payment of 1350 to each of the ten competing architects, in full compensation for their services in preparing and submitting designs. That amount was paid to the appellants. And they were expressly informed by the above act that the. plans and recommendations of the Secretary were to be transmitted to Congress. Besides, the Programme of competition explicitly stated that the act did not provide for a building, but only for designs to be approved by Congress. The Secretary was without authority under the act of 1901 to make any binding contract for the erection of the proposed building; and Congress, it seems, took no action in reference to the designs prepared by the appellants under that act. Nothing more was done by either side until Congress, by the act of February 9th, 1903, made independent provisions for the erection of a building for the use of the Department of Agriculture, at a cost not exceeding $1,500,000. But no contract was made under that act with the appellants. On the contrary, the minds of the parties never met as to the terms of any contract in execution of the provisions of the act of February 9th, 1903. The appellants declined to accept the contract prepared and submitted by the Department. Clearly, the appellants were not entitled, simply because of the acceptance of their plans, prepared under the act of 1901, to construct the building provided for in the separare, independent act of February 9th, 1903; and as no contract was made with them by the Secretary under the latter act, they have no cause of action against the United states.

Judgment affirmed.