Document: 371 U.S. 57 83 S.Ct. 108 9 L.Ed.2d 31 SOUTHERN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., et al.,v.PICKARD, doing business as Pickard Engineering Co. al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES FOR the USE OF Samuel J. PICKARD. No. 46. Argued Oct. 16, 1962. Nov. 5, William Harbison, Nashville, Tenn., for petitioners. Edward Gallagher, Washington, D.C., respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Southern Construction Company, one of petitioners here, was prime contractor on contracts with United States rehabilitation certain barracks at Fort Campbell, Tennessee, and Benning, Georgia. There were three covering Georgia project Tennessee project. Pursuant to provisions Miller Act, 49 Stat. 793, amended, 40 U.S.C. §§ 270a—270d, U.S.C.A. furnished performance payment bonds, Continental Casualty co-petitioner surety. The plumbing heating subcontractor both projects respondent Pickard, Company. Pickard's primary supplier Atlas Supply 2 In December 1955, men left job before it fully completed, shortly thereafter Atlas, supplier, claimed that $34,520 due materials $104,000 Following a conference in August 1956 between officials representatives paid $35,000 exchange complete release all liability accounts respect projects.1 3 1956, acting under brought suit, name States, District Court Middle against recovery amounts allegedly owing jobs. January 1957, filed an answer counterclaim which alleged had out more than contract price jobs excess sought. time included counterclaim. 4 however, requires suits instituted its 'shall be * any district performed executed not elsewhere *.' § 270b(b), 270b(b). Since this statute appeared prohibit action project, April 1957 present relating only, by amendment eliminated part his claim from action. 5 proceeding trial 1959, according findings case 'dropped' prior originally asserted suit has yet proceeded final judgment, September 1961 having granted Southern's motion new 6 here involved affirmative relief, answered barred 'res judicata.' later waived relief sought only credit This figure precise amount been supplied job. 7 Court, deciding entitled recovery, allowed item claim, but point Appeals Sixth Circuit reversed. 293 F.2d 493. It held since there no allocation item, Rule 13(a) Federal Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., 'potential compulsory counterclaim' either two suits;2 when responsive pleading subject other pending therefore 'compulsory' suit; and, accordingly, such could We certiorari consider applicability these unusual circumstances. 368 975, 82 478, 437. 8 accept purposes ruling below allocated have Nevertheless, we do believe operates use requirement counterclaims arising same transaction or occurrence opposing party's 'shall' stated pleadings designed prevent multiplicity actions achieve resolution single lawsuit disputes common matters. particularly directed who failed assert then second became basis complaint. See, e.g., Eastport S.S. Corp., Cir., 255 795, 801—802. is readily apparent policy application here. instance, plaintiff-respondent, combine claims correctly concluded he required split those bring separate different districts. fragmentation claims, therefore, compelled federal law, defendant thus first confronted choice should resorted assertion both. Under circumstances, hold did compel made whichever filed.3 Its Southern, without reason, considered appurtenant (pp. 58—59, supra, p. 109), means circuity aimed preventing. Accordingly, judgment insofar related reversed, remanded court further proceedings consistent opinion. 10 so ordered. 11 Judgment reversed part, directions. 270b, secondarily liable suppliers subcontractor. provides: '(a) Compulsory counterclaims. A shall state serving pleader party, if arises matter does require adjudication presence third parties whom cannot acquire jurisdiction, except need commenced another action.' are informed after case, amended Further action, awaiting decision case. Of course once adjudicated reasserted other.

Category: 8