Case: AUSTIN W. LORD AND J. MONROE HEWLETT, UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF LORD AND HEWLETT, v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Lord & Hewlett v. United States
Decision Date: 1910-05-02
Docket Number: 
Citation: 45 Ct. Cl. 612
Volume: 45
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: AUSTIN W. LORD AND J. MONROE HEWLETT, UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF LORD AND HEWLETT, v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 612–612

Head Matter:
AUSTIN W. LORD AND J. MONROE HEWLETT, UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF LORD AND HEWLETT, v. THE UNITED STATES.
[43 C. Cls. R., 282 ;
217 U. S. R., 340.]
On the claimants’ appeal.
The act 2d March, 1901, appropriates $5,000 “ to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to have prepared, under Ms direction, plans for a fireproof administrative building.” The Secretary invites ten architects to compete. He limits the cost of the proposed building to $2,000,000. The claimants’ plans are approved and transmitted to Congress. They contemplate a building to cost $2,500,000. The act 9th February, 1903, authorizes the Secretary to cause a building to be erected for the Department of Agriculture “ in accordance with pirns to be procured,” the cost not to exceed $1,500,000. The Secretary endeavors to retain the claimants as architects, but they can not agree upon terms.
The court below decides:
I. The Act $d March, 1901 (31 Stat L., p. 922, 938), appropriating $5,000 for architectural plans for a new Department of Agriculture, did not authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a contract for the future services of an architect; and the Secretary’s representations as to the probable future action of Congress in regard to the selection and employment of the claimants as architects were not a contract either in form' or in substance.
II. The Act 9th February, 1903 (32 Stat. L., p. 806), authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to erect a building for the Department “in accordance with plans to be procured within the Imvit of cost, hereby fixed,”' $1,500,000, did not ratify and adopt the plans for such a building prepared by the claimants under the act 2d March, 1901. The act 9th February, 1903, related to a new and distinct transaction.
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 2, 1910.