Summary

Beach v. United States — Opinion of the Court

For it is fundamental that he who is without authority to bind his principal by an express contract cannot be held to have done so by implication.
Another and sufficient answer is that the appellant has failed to show any use by the Postmaster-General or his successors of the patented inventions or devices of the appellant, or to show that the contractors or agents of the government have made any use of them. His case here fails because he does not show that the inventions or devices used are those covered by his patents.
Source: Wikisource

Beach v. United States — Opinion of the Court

The Postmaster-General has no authority in law to contract for the expenditure of money for the use of or purchase of any such invention, nor is there any existing appropriation out of which the cost of the same could be paid.
The right is reserved to decline any test of any tube or device submitted in response to this advertisement, and to reject any proposal that may be made.
The propositions and result of all experiments will be the subject of a report to Congress.
Source: Wikisource

Beach v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Under date August 20, 1892, the claimant wrote to the Postmaster-General, stating that pursuant to the advertisement dated July 26, 1892, he desired to submit a description of a pneumatic tube or device invented and owned by him, suitable for and adapted to the rapid despatch of mail matter between large cities and postoffice stations, and also desired to accompany said description with a 'proposal offering to license to or otherwise invest in the United States the right to use the tube or device, to lease by the year, or to sell, assign, and transfer it to the United States' as a purchaser
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature