
    SAMUEL MONROE AND DAVID M. RICHARDSON v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [35 C. Cls. R., 199; 184 U. S. R., 524.]
    
      On the defendant"1 s Appeal.
    
    The question in the case is whether the approval of the formal contract by the Chief of Engineers was essential to the validity of the contract, which provided that “this contract shall be subject to the approval of the Chief of Engineers."
    
    The court below decides:
    1. Where a contract provides that it is subject to the approval of a designated officer, such approval need not be in writing.
    
      2. Where a contract provides “that this contract shall he subject to the .approval of the Chief of Engineers," it is impossible for the court to hold that the words are meaningless or that they mean that a prior contract had been approved.
    3. If a contract made by a subordinate is in terms subject to the approval of his superior, approval is a condition precedent to the validity of the agreement.
    I. Where approval is a condition precedent to the validity of a contract) and work under it is done without the knowledge or direction of the officer in charge, and no benefit results to the Government, the service is voluntary. The contractor may act in good faith, but it is at his own risk.
    5. No one can thrust a contract upon another. There must be agreement, or something from which agreement can be inferred — request, acquiescence, knowledge, or the retention of a consideration which can be returned. A contract can not be implied from the voluntary acts of one party.
    6. At nisi prius a defendant may move for a nonsuit, or may demur, or request the court to direct a verdict in his favor, and thus test the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s case. An analogous practice may be followed in this court.
    7. Where claimants desire to appeal, the court will find the facts and assess the damages. The. findings will then stand as a verdict taken subject to the opinion of the court.
    8. It is a matter of judgment as to what constitutes a reasonable profit. Numerous cases indicate that it ranges from 10 to 25 per cent.
    The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
   Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court March 10, 1902.  