Citation. 22 Ill.132 F.2d 794 (8th Cir. 1942)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here
Brief Fact Summary.
The Appellee, Roberts (Appellee), attempted to bring matters on appeal that allegedly had not been presented on cross-appeal.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
A Respondent or Appellee may urge any matter appearing in the record in support of a judgment.
The Appellants, Standard Accident Insurance Co. (Appellants), issued a liability policy to the Appellee. Personal injury judgments were later secured by the Primms against the Appellee. The Appellant filed an action against the Appellee and Primms for declaratory judgment that it was not liable to them on the policy. The trial court held that the policy did not cover the Primms, but with regard to Appellee, the Appellant was estopped from denying liability because it had been in charge of the investigation and defense of damage suit. The Appellant appealed.
Whether the Appellee’s failure to present matters as cross appeals precludes the matters from being heard.
No. The contention that the policy covered the accident sought only to sustain the judgment for a reason presented at trial and determined adversely to the Appellees. The recovery was on the policy. Therefore the Appellees may in support of the decree support the ground that the policy covered the accident.
The Appellants asserted there was no liability under the policy and that the policy could not be extended through estoppel, no estoppel was proven and the Appellee was not prejudiced by the Appellant’s conduct. The Appellee in turn asserted that the policy should have been reformed, the court should have allowed reasonable attorneys’ fees and the statutory penalty and the policy covered the accident. The Appellant argued that none of the Appellee’s three matters could be heard because they were not presented as cross-appeals.