An act of Congress appropriating for a competition for plans of a proposed building, the successful once to be transmitted to Congress, and which does not appropriate for the building itself creates no obligation on the part of the United States to use the plans of the successful competitor, and so held in regard to the act of March 2, 1901, c. 805, 31 Stat. 922, 938, providing for competition for building for Department of Agriculture. Under the act of February 9, 1903, c. 528, 32 Stat. 806, providing for plans for a building for the Department of Agriculture not to exceed $1,500,000, the Secretary of Agriculture was not obliged to use the successful plans under the competition provided in the act of March 2, 1901, and in the absence of a contract to use such plans the architects submitting them have no claim for fees against the United States. There is no contract unless the minds of the parties meet; and although there were negotiations in this case the architects, having declined to accept a contract submitted by the Department of Agriculture, have no contractual claim against the United States. 43 C. Cl. 282, affirmed.
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 referred 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 $350 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 separate, 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.