Ross v. Ross

MORRIS, Judge.

By his initial assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a more definite statement. Of course, the grant or denial of a motion for a more definite statement rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, Mitchell v. E-Z Way Towers, Inc., 269 F. 2d 126 (5th Cir. 1959), and his ruling thereon will not be overturned on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.

Rule 12(e) provides that .a motion for a more definite statement is proper only wdien “. . . a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or…