against a third-party defendant are permissive, not mandatory. There is no automatic adversary relationship between an original plaintiff and a third-party defendant. Additionally, no cross-claim is compulsory. Dunn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 645 F.2d 511, 512 n. 1 (5th Cir.1981); Whittaker v. Schreiner, 174 Mont. 232, 570 P.2d 299, 301 (1977); Executive Management, Ltd. v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 963 P.2d 465, 474 (Nev.1998). Thus, there was no adversary relationship between Holland and the Investors. ¶ 30. Additionally, the principles of res judicata are inconsistent with the idea of permissive claims; and therefore, res judicata does not operate to bar subsequent claims which may have been asserted but were not. Krikava, 716 P.2d at 918; Eyde, 324 N.W.2d at 779; Burrell, 474 P.2d at 470 (<HOLDING>). See also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Farmer,
holding parent company bound in subsequent action by res judicata effect of judgment against subsidiary holding that dismissal of eeocs action for failure to comply with administrative procedures act barred subsequent private action based on same claim under res judicata principles holding that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to defenses that could have been raised in a prior action holding that res judicata did not preclude the subsequent filing of an action which was a permissive claim in a prior action holding that res judicata is not applicable to a claim for relief that was unavailable in the earlier action