Legal Opinion

Ayoub v. Gue

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided January 2, 1959No. 2219Published

1Opinion of the Court

ROVER, Chief Judge.

This appeal is taken from the denial of a motion to vacate a default judgment. The question presented is whether the procedural requirements are met when information sought by a motion for more definite statement is furnished the movant in the form of a letter.

The facts are these: Plaintiffs brought suit for damages alleging breach of contract. After service of the complaint, defendant filed a motion for more definite statement under the provisions of Municipal Court Civil Rule 12(e).1 Although filed a few days late, the court granted the motion and made the following entry:

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Manos v. FickenscherDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1948
  2. Fort Stevens Pharmacy, Inc. v. Hollywood Credit Clothing Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API