Opinion ID: 1973578
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to dismiss the cross-appeal.

Text: Hamilton's cross-appeal was grounded on the theory that if the softball project was not a section 384.24(4)(b) general corporate purpose, alternatively it was a combination of one or more general corporate purposes with one or more essential corporate purposes, thus requiring a special election to authorize the bonds, under the provisions of section 384.28, The Code. The same concept was urged in district court and submitted here as a division of Hamilton's responsive brief on the city's appeal. Hamilton may seek affirmance in this court on grounds rejected by district court as well as the ground which was accepted. Howard v. Des Moines Register & Tribune Co., 283 N.W.2d 289, 291-92 (Iowa 1979), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 100 S.Ct. 1081, 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980). The cross-appeal furnishes nothing additional which is helpful in deciding this matter. We therefore sustain the motion to dismiss it.