
    JOSEPH L. HARLEY v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [39 C. Cls. R., 105; 198 U. S. R., 229.]
    
      On the claimant’s Affeal.
    
    The Secretary of the Treasury determines that certain securities shall not be printed in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing until reliable registers are attached to the presses. The claimant having an invention for a register, the Chief of the Bureau takes him with it to the Secretary of the Treasury, who-approves and orders one made and tested. No agreement is made in regard to royalty. On the part of the claimant it is supposed that he will be entitled to compensation and paid; on the part of the Secretary and Chief of the Bureau that the claimant, being an employee of the Treasury Department, will neither expect nor demand remuneration. Ilis register is patented and used on a great number of plate-printing presses for several years. During that period he-makes no objection and does not give notice that he will demand royalty or remuneration.
    The court below decides:
    1. In its business of engraving bank bills the Government is a manufacturer and entitled to no more consideration than any other engraver and printer, but is entitled to no less.
    2. Of implied contracts there.are two kinds: First, where a man takes property and the owner waives the tort and sues in assumpsit, i. e., where there is no meeting of minds; second, where the parties meet, and their meeting results in an unexpressed agreement.
    3. Where an inventor says, “You may use my device, paying me a reasonable royalty,” and the officers of the Government say nothing, but order the device adopted, a contract will be implied. But where the inventor, being an employee of the Government, says nothing, and allows the officers of the Government to suppose that the invention may be used without royalty, and it is so used for a number Of years, he can not subsequently set up an implied contract.
    4. A man can not have a contract thrust upon him against his will-The Government has no legal right to use an invention, but it has the right to print and engrave notes without using it, i. e., the right to know that a royalty will be exacted, and to save that expense by using registers of another device.
   The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 8, 1905.  