## Facts

- A newspaper ran a public contest offering an automobile as a prize.
- An individual connected with the contest operations represented to Samuel S. Greenberg that, for $300, he could secretly ensure Greenberg would win.
- Greenberg paid $300 pursuant to this corrupt side agreement.
- About two weeks later, the intermediary demanded an additional $100.
- On advice of counsel, Greenberg repudiated the arrangement, refused to pay more, and demanded return of the $300.
- Greenberg sued the newspaper publisher to recover the $300 in an action for money had and received, alleging the payment lacked lawful consideration and was received by the publisher.

## Issues

1. Whether a participant in an illegal or immoral executory scheme may recover money paid after repudiating the scheme before its unlawful purpose is carried out.
2. Whether disputed proof of an intermediary’s agency bars recovery when the defendant is shown to have actually received the plaintiff’s money.

## Decision

- The court affirmed judgment for Greenberg.
- The illegality of the scheme did not bar restitution because Greenberg repudiated the agreement while it remained executory and before the wrongful objective was accomplished.
- Any dispute about the intermediary’s agency was immaterial once evidence supported that the defendant actually received the money.
- The jury’s findings were adequately supported, and the trial court properly refused to set aside the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may obtain restitution of money paid under an illegal or immoral agreement when the plaintiff disaffirms the transaction before the unlawful purpose is performed and recovery does not require enforcing the illegal bargain.
- The in pari delicto bar is not absolute in restitution; courts may order repayment where doing so withdraws the parties from the unlawful arrangement and prevents unjust retention of the payment.
- In an action for money had and received, proof of an intermediary’s authority is not determinative if the defendant’s actual receipt of the plaintiff’s money is established.

## Conclusion

The court allowed recovery of the $300 because Greenberg repudiated the corrupt contest-fixing plan before it was carried out, and the publisher could be required to refund money it actually received without the court enforcing the unlawful agreement.


Greenberg v. Evening Post Ass'n, 91 Conn. 371, 99 A. 1037 (Conn. 1917)