In the recent Pennsylvania case of Mackay v. Benjamin Franklin Realty & Holding Company, an architect was employed to draw plans for the erection of the Benjamin Franklin Hotel at Philadelphia. For some reason the construction of the hotel was abandoned before the plans were accepted. Later it was again decided to build the hotel, but in the interval the architect had died, and a second architect was employed to draw plans. He, without the consent of the personal representative of the first architect, copied his plans, which were accepted and used in the construction of the building. The action was brought by the personal representative against the owners of the hotel for the conversion and use of deceased's plans. The court held for the defendant on the ground that the second architect was an independent contractor, and that the owners of the building were not responsible for his torts. The decision itself seems not open to dispute. The facts of the case, however, suggest an interesting question; namely, what would have been the result had the action been against the second architect, or putting it generally, what tort, if any, does one commit when he takes the ideas but no tangible property of another?