UNITED STATE OF AMERICA to the use and for the benefit of Rule 3 relating to commencement of actions and Rule 4 (d) (4) relating to service upon the United States supplant the provisions of the Tucker Act (Sections 5 and 6 of the Act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 506; U.S.C., Title 28, Secs. 762 and 763). (See opinion in this case under Rule 14) 1. A pleading which contains many evidentiary allegations and inconsistent allegations not properly separated does not meet the requirement that pleadings shall be simple, concise and direct, and should be stricken off. (Rule 8 (e) (1) ) 2. Claim in the nature of ejectment and a claim to impress a trust may be joinod alternatively in spite of the fact that they may be inconsistent. (Rule 8 (e) (2) ) 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the specific relief for which he asks, will not be considered on a motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency. (Rule 54 (c) ) 4. The existence of an adequate remedy at law is not ground for dismissal of an action begun as a suit in equity before effective date of Rules but which came on for hearing on a motion to dismiss after September 16, 1938. (Rules 2 and 86) WATSON, D. J. This case is before the Court upon Defendant's motion to dismiss the action for the reasons that the Plaintiffs have a complete and adequate remedy at law, and that the amount in controversy is less than $3,000.00 Although this action was begun as a suit in equity before the Rules of Civil Procedure were in effect, it must now be viewed as a civil action in which the plaintiffs ask for remedies formerly obtainable only in a court of equity. Federal Rule 86 provides that the Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to all pending actions unless their applicability should not be possible or should work injustice. There is nothing in the present case which |