Collier v. First Michigan Cooperative Housing Ass'n, 13908.

• Decision Date: 04 February 1960
• Docket Number: No. 13908.,13908.
• Citation: 274 F.2d 467
• Parties: Fred B. COLLIER et al., Appellants, v. FIRST MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE HOUSING ASSOCIATION et al., Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

274 F.2d 467 (1960)

Fred B. COLLIER et al., Appellants, v. FIRST MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE HOUSING ASSOCIATION et al., Appellees.

No. 13908.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

February 4, 1960.

Fred B. Collier, Detroit, Mich., for appellants.

Arthur H. Fribourg, Atty. F. H. A., Civil Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington D. C. (George Cochran Doub, Samuel D. Slade, Fred W. Kaess, U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich. on the brief; John L. Owen, Detroit, Mich., Hutson, Merritt & Petermann, Royal Oak, Mich., Fildew, DeGree, Fleming & Gilbride, Detroit, Mich., Clarence L. Smith and Philip Pratt, Pontiac, Mich., of counsel), for appellees.

Before CECIL and WEICK, Circuit Judges and BROOKS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court dismissing the amended cross-bill of complaint of appellants as to Federal Housing Administration (F. H.A.), for the reason that it violated Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

The case originated in the Circuit Court of Oakland County, Michigan and was an action for accounting and equitable relief. In that action appellants, who were defendants therein, filed a cross-bill of complaint on June 13, 1952 which made F.H.A. and others additional parties defendant. F.H.A. removed the case to the District Court where, at various times, appellants amended their cross-bill. The amendments were as follows: Amended cross-bill of September 4, 1953, Count VIII of October 29, 1954, and amendment to cross-bill of April 24, 1956. It would be necessary to consider all four pleadings in order to arrive at what cross-plaintiffs were complaining of.

In 1954, six days were spent in the trial of the case on the merits. Subsequently, to-wit: on October 29, 1954, the pleading entitled Count VIII of cross-plaintiffs' Bill of Complaint was filed.¹ The trial was resumed for another eight days commencing October 13, 1955 and resulted in a final order dismissing the cross-bill against F.H.A. Appellant filed a notice of appeal and, while this was pending, a motion for a new trial. The appeal was dismissed on appellants' motion and on the same day the District Court granted appellants' motion for a new trial. Following this, namely, on April 24, 1956, appellants filed another pleading entitled "Cross Plaintiffs Amendment to Cross-Bill of Complaint."

F.H.A. filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the cross-bill, as amended, did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that F.H.A. was not a proper party defendant. Another judge hearing that motion suggested the filing of a motion to dismiss for violation of Rule 8(a) as the claims appeared to be confused. This motion was filed and granted.

The cross-bill of complaint and its various amendments appear to be prolix and muddled. Separate claims of the several cross-plaintiffs against the several defendants were jumbled in the single cross-bill. It was difficult for the ...