## Facts

- John W. Sinnar operated a grocery store in Seattle and unsuccessfully applied to the Washington State Liquor Control Board for a beer license; the Board denied the application and returned his $60 fee.
- Sinnar and Harry K. LeRoy discussed obtaining a beer license after the denial.
- LeRoy told Sinnar he knew a city employee (“Mr. Lewis”) who could obtain the license and stated it would cost $450.
- Sinnar paid LeRoy $450 in cash under an agreement that LeRoy would either secure the beer license or return the money.
- LeRoy testified he gave the $450 to “Mr. Lewis”; no license was obtained and the money was not returned.
- Under Washington law, beer licenses could be issued only by the state liquor control board, not by the city.
- Sinnar sued LeRoy in King County Superior Court to recover the $450; after a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Sinnar.
- LeRoy appealed, contending the agreement was illegal and unenforceable.

## Issues

1. Whether the defense of illegality is barred when not affirmatively pleaded, where serious illegality appears from the evidence.
2. Whether an agreement to pay money to obtain a beer license through an unidentified city employee, contrary to the statutory licensing scheme, is illegal and unenforceable as against public policy.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Sinnar and remanded with directions to dismiss the action.
- The court held that serious illegality need not be pleaded; if illegality appears in the evidence, a court may deny relief on its own motion, and the parties cannot waive the issue.
- The court held the transaction was illegal because it contemplated securing a state-issued license through improper means outside the lawful statutory process.
- Because the agreement was illegal, the court refused to grant recovery and left the parties where it found them.

## Legal Principles

- A court will not enforce a contract, or grant relief based on it, when the agreement is contrary to public policy due to illegality in its object or contemplated means.
- When illegality of a serious nature appears in the evidence, the court may raise it sua sponte; the defense is not waivable and need not be affirmatively pleaded.
- Where parties participate in an illegal bargain, the usual consequence is dismissal without restitution, even if one party suffers a loss.

## Conclusion

The court denied recovery of the $450 because the parties’ agreement contemplated obtaining a beer license through improper influence outside the statutory licensing system; serious illegality could be addressed without pleading, and judicial relief was barred as a matter of public policy.


Sinnar v. Le Roy, 44 Wn.2d 728, 270 P.2d 800 (Wash. 1954)