
    ROBERT A. HOOE AND ARTHUR HERBERT v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [43 C. Cls. R., 245; 218 U. S. R., 322.]
    Congress appropriate “m full compensation ” for the rent of a building for the Civil Service Commission $4,000. In pursuance of the statute creating the commission (22 Stat. L., p. 403), which provides “ That it shall he the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to cause suitable and convenient rooms * * * to be provided * * * for carrying on the world of saAd commission,” the Secretary rents a building for the use of the commission “ except the basement thereof,” paying therefor the amount appropriated. The commission holds over for a number of years, the defendants paying the same rent, but the owners demanding a higher rent. Subsequently the commission occupies the basement, though not included in the lease. During this continued occupancy the owners demand rent for the basement in excess of the amount appropriated by Congress.
    The court below decides:
    I.Where the Government goes into possession under a written lease and continues to occupy after the expiration of the term, the relation between the owners and the Government is that of a tenant holding over.
    II.Complaints and threats on the part of the owners of a building do not amount to a notice to quit.
    III.Where the landlord suffers the tenant to continue in possession, the law presumes the holding to' be upon the same terms prescribed in the written lease; and rent paid by the Government and receipts given by the owner enlarge this presumption into a positive conclusion.
    
      IV. Congress bold the purse strings of the Government, and no officer can by evasion or indirection deprive Congress of their authority to control and direct appropriations.
    Y. The Civil Service Commission, being in possession of a part of-a building under an express lease, could not, by using the whole of the building, increase the liability of the Government beyond the amount to which the rental was limited by an appropriation act.
    VI. The rule to be deduced from the statutes regulating the renting of buildings for Government purposes in the District of Columbia and from the decisions interpreting them is this: Where there is no specific appropriation limiting the amount which may be paid as rent, an implied contract may arise by reason of a public officer in the performance of a duty taking possession of and using a building for Government purposes. But where there is a specific appropriation limiting the amount to be paid as rent, a lease which reserves a rent exceeding the amount authorized by Congress is expressly-prohibited by other statutes and is pro tanto void; and no contract can be implied from the occupancy which will involve the Government in a greater liability than that fixed by Congress.
    The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
   Mr. Justice Harlan

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court November 28, 1910.  