# Lowman v. City of Asheville

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · September 22, 1948 · 229 N.C. 247

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3657601

## Case

- **Full name:** Florence E. Lowman, Administratrix of the Estate of Gay Ree Lowman v. City of Asheville, a Municipal Corporation.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** September 22, 1948
- **Citations:** 229 N.C. 247; 49 S.E.2d 408; 1948 N.C. LEXIS 457
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Denny
- **Judges:** Denny
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3657601

## Opinion text

Denny, J.
Ordinarily whether or not the trial judge grants a motion to make a pleading more definite, as provided in G. S., 1-153, is within his discretion. And where there is nothing on the record, as in the instant case, to indicate the motion was denied as a matter of law, it will be presumed the judge denied it in his discretion.
Brown v. Hall,
226 N. C., 732 , 40 S.E. (2d), 412 ;
Cody v. Hovey,
219 N. C., 369 , 14 S. E. (2d), 30 ;
Wolf v. Goldstein,
192 N. C., 818 , 135 S. E., 39 ;
Hensley v. Furniture Co.,
164 N. C., 148 , 80 S. E., 154 . It would seem the motion had some merit, but such orders entered in the discretion of the trial judge are not reviewable upon appeal.
Cody v. Iiovey, supra: Brown v. Hall, supra.
Even so, we know of no reason wiry the defendant, if it so desires, may not apply for a bill of particulars, as provided in G. S., 1-150.
Building Co. v. Jones,
227 N. C., 282 , 41 S. E. (2d), 747 ;
Lucas v. Railway Co.,
121 N. C., 506 , 28 S. E., 265 .
The judgment below is
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3657601. Public record. Not legal advice.