Huber v. Watts

2 Citing cases

  1. Village of Pawnee v. Knostman

    115 Ill. App. 3d 842 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)   Cited 11 times

    It is also established that Azzarelli, as appellee, can sustain the judgment on any basis in the record. ( Huber v. Watts (1982), 110 Ill. App.3d 614, 616-17, 442 N.E.2d 969.) In its attempt to do so in the case at bar, Azzarelli argues that the second amended complaint, in its counts against it, was insufficient (1) in failing to allege that Azzarelli had failed to follow the plans and specifications and (2) in alleging conclusions rather than ultimate facts.

  2. Kaibab Industries, Inc. v. Family Ready Homes, Inc.

    444 N.E.2d 1119 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)   Cited 7 times
    In Kaibab, the court observed that the purchaser in a suspect conveyance "was a business associate and friend of the judgment debtor.

    After abandoning the alter ego theory the plaintiff in its effort to support its judgment advances arguments which can be described as a "fraudulent agent" theory, in that the defendant corporation was the agent who assisted in perpetrating and concealing the fraudulent acts of its president and shareholder, B.F. Waldsmith. • 3 The defendant corporation objects to the raising of this new issue for the first time on appeal. The objection is not well taken, since unlike the appellant, an appellee can sustain a decree by any argument and on any basis appearing in the record which shows that the trial court is right. (See Becker v. Billings (1922), 304 Ill. 190, 136 N.E. 581; Hall v. Humphrey-Lake Corp. (1975), 29 Ill. App.3d 956, 331 N.E.2d 365; and Huber v. Watts (1982), 110 Ill. App.3d 614.) We will consider the theory and arguments in support of the same which is advanced by the plaintiff for the first time on appeal.