Under an ordinary automobile insurance policy, P insurance company promised to defend and indemnify Harvey for any suit arising from an accident involving his use of the insured truck. Collier sued Harvey in a state court alleging injuries due to the negligent use of the insured truck by two Harvey employees. Before judgment thereon, P, incorporated under the laws of Wisconsin, sued Harvey and Collier, citizens of Oklahoma, in the federal court. P sought a declaratory judgment on the grounds that (a) at the time of the accident the employees were under the control and supervision of the City of Seminole, and (b) Harvey had failed to give due notice of the accident. Harvey then filed a cross-claim against Collier requesting the court to declare him not liable for Collier's injuries. The trial court rendered a judgment exonerating P and Harvey from any liability for Collier's injuries as the negligent employees had been acting under the control of the City of Seminole at the time of the accident. On appeal, Collier asserted that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the cross-claim as the questions raised by the cross-claim were not essentially ancillary to the subject matter of the original suit. Held, that the judgment on the cross-claim is affirmed insofar as it declared Harvey not liable for Collier's injuries on the grounds of the negligence of Harvey's employees. Collier v. Harvey, (10th Cir. 1949) 179 F. (2d) 664.
Rex Eames S.Ed.,
FEDERAL COURTS-USE OF A CROSS-CLAIM UNDER RULE 13(g) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol49/iss1/15