abstract principle in North Carolina

1969In other words, it is error to charge on an abstract principle of law not raised by proper pleading and not supported by any view of the evidence.” See also Vann v. Hayes, 266 N.C. 713 , 147 S.E. 2d 186 (1966), and Childress v. Motor Lines, 235 N.C. 522 , 70 S.E. 2d 558 (1952).

1969In other words, it is error to charge on an abstract principle of law not raised by proper pleading and not supported by any view of the evidence.” See also Vann v. Hayes, 266 N.C. 713 , 147 S.E. 2d 186 (1966), and Childress v. Motor Lines, 235 N.C. 522 , 70 S.E. 2d 558 (1952).

1970Numerous decisions of our Supreme Court and of this court have established the rule that it is error for the trial court to charge upon an abstract principle of law which is not presented by the allegations and evidence; the following cases are illustrative: Motor Freight v. DuBose, 260 N.C. 497 , 133 S.E. 2d 129 (1953), where the court charged on but there was no evidence that defendant failed to give a signal for a left turn or was speeding; White v. Cothran, 260 N.C. 510 , 133 S.E. 2d 132 (1963), where the court charged on statute requiring hand signals to indicate turning movements where t

1970Numerous decisions of our Supreme Court and of this court have established the rule that it is error for the trial court to charge upon an abstract principle of law which is not presented by the allegations and evidence; the following cases are illustrative: Motor Freight v. DuBose, 260 N.C. 497 , 133 S.E. 2d 129 (1953), where the court charged on but there was no evidence that defendant failed to give a signal for a left turn or was speeding; White v. Cothran, 260 N.C. 510 , 133 S.E. 2d 132 (1963), where the court charged on statute requiring hand signals to indicate turning movements where t

1968Motor Freight v. DuBose, 260 N.C. 497 , 113 S.E. 2d 129 ; Carswell v. Lackey, 253 N.C. 387 , 117 S.E. 2d 51 ; Andrews v. Sprott, 249 N.C. 729 , 107 S.E. 2d 560 .

1968Motor Freight v. DuBose, 260 N.C. 497 , 113 S.E. 2d 129 ; Carswell v. Lackey, 253 N.C. 387 , 117 S.E. 2d 51 ; Andrews v. Sprott, 249 N.C. 729 , 107 S.E. 2d 560 .

2009Our Court has said “it is an estab-. lished rule of trial procedure with us that an abstract proposition of law not pointing to the facts of the case at hand and not pertinent thereto should not be given to the jury” and “[]an instruction about a material matter not based on sufficient evidence is erroneous.” Childress v. [Johnson Motor Lines, Inc.], 235 N.C. 522 , 70 S.E. 558 [(1952),] and many cases therein cited.

1966Our Court has said “it is an established rule of trial procedure with us that an abstract proposition of law not pointing to the facts of the case at hand and not pertinent thereto should not be given to the jury” and “* * * an instruction about a material matter not based on sufficient evi-Idence is erroneous.” Childress v. Motor Lines, 235 N.C. 522 , 70 S.E. 558 and many cases therein cited.

1969In other words, it is error to charge on an abstract principle of law not raised by proper pleading and not supported by any view of the evidence.” See also Vann v. Hayes, 266 N.C. 713 , 147 S.E. 2d 186 (1966), and Childress v. Motor Lines, 235 N.C. 522 , 70 S.E. 2d 558 (1952).

1969In other words, it is error to charge on an abstract principle of law not raised by proper pleading and not supported by any view of the evidence.” See also Vann v. Hayes, 266 N.C. 713 , 147 S.E. 2d 186 (1966), and Childress v. Motor Lines, 235 N.C. 522 , 70 S.E. 2d 558 (1952).

1964“It is error to charge on an abstract principle of law not supported by any view of the evidence.” Andrews v. Sprott, 249 N.C. 729 , 107 S.E. 2d 560 .

1964“It is error to charge on an abstract principle of law not supported by any view of the evidence.” Andrews v. Sprott, 249 N.C. 729 , 107 S.E. 2d 560 .

1964Dunlap v. Lee, 257 N.C. 447, 450 , 126 *241 S.E. 2d 62; McGinnis v. Robinson, 252 N.C. 574 , 114 S.E. 2d 365 .

1964Dunlap v. Lee, 257 N.C. 447, 450 , 126 *241 S.E. 2d 62; McGinnis v. Robinson, 252 N.C. 574 , 114 S.E. 2d 365 .

1890R. , 105 N.C. 180 , would necessarily arise, but were not referred to by his Honor except in stating, in a previous part of his charge, the abstract principle.

1890In instructing the jury as to such an issue, some of the points discussed in the case of Bullock v. Railroad, 105 N. C., 180 , would necessarily arise, but were not referred to by his Honor except in stating, in a previous part of his charge, the abstract principle.

1970Numerous decisions of our Supreme Court and of this court have established the rule that it is error for the trial court to charge upon an abstract principle of law which is not presented by the allegations and evidence; the following cases are illustrative: Motor Freight v. DuBose, 260 N.C. 497 , 133 S.E. 2d 129 (1953), where the court charged on but there was no evidence that defendant failed to give a signal for a left turn or was speeding; White v. Cothran, 260 N.C. 510 , 133 S.E. 2d 132 (1963), where the court charged on statute requiring hand signals to indicate turning movements where t

1970App. 345 , 163 S.E. 2d 47 (1968), where court charged on reckless driving and there was insufficient evidence to present this question.

1970Numerous decisions of our Supreme Court and of this court have established the rule that it is error for the trial court to charge upon an abstract principle of law which is not presented by the allegations and evidence; the following cases are illustrative: Motor Freight v. DuBose, 260 N.C. 497 , 133 S.E. 2d 129 (1953), where the court charged on but there was no evidence that defendant failed to give a signal for a left turn or was speeding; White v. Cothran, 260 N.C. 510 , 133 S.E. 2d 132 (1963), where the court charged on statute requiring hand signals to indicate turning movements where t

1970Numerous decisions of our Supreme Court and of this court have established the rule that it is error for the trial court to charge upon an abstract principle of law which is not presented by the allegations and evidence; the following cases are illustrative: Motor Freight v. DuBose, 260 N.C. 497 , 133 S.E. 2d 129 (1953), where the court charged on but there was no evidence that defendant failed to give a signal for a left turn or was speeding; White v. Cothran, 260 N.C. 510 , 133 S.E. 2d 132 (1963), where the court charged on statute requiring hand signals to indicate turning movements where t

1969Pressley v. Pressley, 261 N.C. 326 , 134 S.E. 2d 609 .

1969Pressley v. Pressley, 261 N.C. 326 , 134 S.E. 2d 609 .

1968Motor Freight v. DuBose, 260 N.C. 497 , 113 S.E. 2d 129 ; Carswell v. Lackey, 253 N.C. 387 , 117 S.E. 2d 51 ; Andrews v. Sprott, 249 N.C. 729 , 107 S.E. 2d 560 .

1964Dunlap v. Lee, 257 N.C. 447, 450 , 126 *241 S.E. 2d 62; McGinnis v. Robinson, 252 N.C. 574 , 114 S.E. 2d 365 .

1960Sale v. Highway Com., 238 N.C. 599 , 78 S.E. 2d 724 .

1960Sale v. Highway Com., 238 N.C. 599 , 78 S.E. 2d 724 .

1959Worley v. Motor Co., 246 N.C. 677 , 100 S.E. 2d 70 ; State v. McCoy, 236 N.C. 121 , 71 S.E. 2d 921 ; Williams v. Harris, 137 N.C. 460 , 49 S.E. 954 .

1959Worley v. Motor Co., 246 N.C. 677 , 100 S.E. 2d 70 ; State v. McCoy, 236 N.C. 121 , 71 S.E. 2d 921 ; Williams v. Harris, 137 N.C. 460 , 49 S.E. 954 .

1959Worley v. Motor Co., 246 N.C. 677 , 100 S.E. 2d 70 ; State v. McCoy, 236 N.C. 121 , 71 S.E. 2d 921 ; Williams v. Harris, 137 N.C. 460 , 49 S.E. 954 .

1959Worley v. Motor Co., 246 N.C. 677 , 100 S.E. 2d 70 ; State v. McCoy, 236 N.C. 121 , 71 S.E. 2d 921 ; Williams v. Harris, 137 N.C. 460 , 49 S.E. 954 .

1959Worley v. Motor Co., 246 N.C. 677 , 100 S.E. 2d 70 ; State v. McCoy, 236 N.C. 121 , 71 S.E. 2d 921 ; Williams v. Harris, 137 N.C. 460 , 49 S.E. 954 .

1959Worley v. Motor Co., 246 N.C. 677 , 100 S.E. 2d 70 ; State v. McCoy, 236 N.C. 121 , 71 S.E. 2d 921 ; Williams v. Harris, 137 N.C. 460 , 49 S.E. 954 .

1930In stating the law óf self-defense as an abstract principle the trial judge did not accurately point out the distinction between the necessity of retreating in the case of an ordinary assault (S. v. Blevins, 138 N. C., 669 ), and the right of a person to stand his ground when he apprehends and has reasonable grounds to apprehend that he is about *765 to suffer great bodily barm or loss of life (S. v. Clark, 134 N. C., 698 ); but in applying tbe principle to tbe evidence be accurately instructed tbe jury in these words: “If tbe prisoner was without fault and tbe deceased, Pink Solesbee, assault

1930In stating the law óf self-defense as an abstract principle the trial judge did not accurately point out the distinction between the necessity of retreating in the case of an ordinary assault (S. v. Blevins, 138 N. C., 669 ), and the right of a person to stand his ground when he apprehends and has reasonable grounds to apprehend that he is about *765 to suffer great bodily barm or loss of life (S. v. Clark, 134 N. C., 698 ); but in applying tbe principle to tbe evidence be accurately instructed tbe jury in these words: “If tbe prisoner was without fault and tbe deceased, Pink Solesbee, assault

1894The cases in which the suggestion that it might aid the jury in understanding questions of negligence in some instances to submit these issues or where that plan has been approved are McAdoo v. Railroad, supra; Denmark v. Railroad, supra; Bean v. Railroad, 107 N. C., 731 ; Blackwell v. Railroad, supra. By reference to the case of Bottoms v. Railroad, 109 N. C., 73 , will be found three issues that are framed substantially in accordance with the suggestion of this Court, and which the most illiberal critic would not venture to say led to confusion or to any illogical results.

1890The abstract rule laid down by the Court in the first paragraph of the instruction given (embodying a part of the syllabus in Baxter v. Wilson, 95 N. C., 137 ) is not erroneous; but, in so far as the application of it made by the Court to the facts of this case, is susceptible of the construction that even if the jury should reach the conclusion that the true location of the “stake by the post-oak and two pines” was at B, they must be controlled by the survey made in view of the conveyance (if the plaintiff’s' witness was worthy of *547 credit), and find that said corner was at C, we do not co

1889We must acknowledge that there is some conflict between Adrian v. Shaw , 82 N.C. 474 , and the authorities there cited ( Gheen v. Summey , 80 N.C. 187 , and Lambert v. Kinnery , 74 N.C. 348 ), on the one hand, and the cases of Hager v. Nixon , 69 N.C. 108 , and Mayo Parker v. Cotten , 69 N.C. 289 , on the other; and the inconsistency of the authorities as to the true interpretation to be given to section 8, Article X, must be removed, either by modifying the abstract rule laid down in *Page 196 Adrian v. Shaw, supra , or by directly overruling the plain principle announced in Mayo v. Cotten as

1889We must acknowledge that there is some conflict between Adrian v. Shaw , 82 N.C. 474 , and the authorities there cited ( Gheen v. Summey , 80 N.C. 187 , and Lambert v. Kinnery , 74 N.C. 348 ), on the one hand, and the cases of Hager v. Nixon , 69 N.C. 108 , and Mayo Parker v. Cotten , 69 N.C. 289 , on the other; and the inconsistency of the authorities as to the true interpretation to be given to section 8, Article X, must be removed, either by modifying the abstract rule laid down in *Page 196 Adrian v. Shaw, supra , or by directly overruling the plain principle announced in Mayo v. Cotten as

1889We must acknowledge that there is some conflict between Adrian v. Shaw , 82 N.C. 474 , and the authorities there cited ( Gheen v. Summey , 80 N.C. 187 , and Lambert v. Kinnery , 74 N.C. 348 ), on the one hand, and the cases of Hager v. Nixon , 69 N.C. 108 , and Mayo Parker v. Cotten , 69 N.C. 289 , on the other; and the inconsistency of the authorities as to the true interpretation to be given to section 8, Article X, must be removed, either by modifying the abstract rule laid down in *Page 196 Adrian v. Shaw, supra , or by directly overruling the plain principle announced in Mayo v. Cotten as

1889We must acknowledge that there is some conflict between Adrian v. Shaw, 82 N. C., 474 , and the authorities there cited (Gheen v. Summey, 80 N. C., 187 , and Lambert v. Kinnery, 74 N. C., 348 ), on the one hand, and the cases of Hager v. Nixon, 69 N. C., 108 , and Mayo & Parker v. Cotten, 69 N. C., 289 , on the other; and the inconsistency of the authorities as to the true interpretation to be given to section 8, Article X, must be removed, either by modifying the abstract rule laid down in Adrian v. Shaw, supra, or by directly overruling the plain principle announced in Mayo v. Gotten as the

1889We must acknowledge that there is some conflict between Adrian v. Shaw , 82 N.C. 474 , and the authorities there cited ( Gheen v. Summey , 80 N.C. 187 , and Lambert v. Kinnery , 74 N.C. 348 ), on the one hand, and the cases of Hager v. Nixon , 69 N.C. 108 , and Mayo Parker v. Cotten , 69 N.C. 289 , on the other; and the inconsistency of the authorities as to the true interpretation to be given to section 8, Article X, must be removed, either by modifying the abstract rule laid down in *Page 196 Adrian v. Shaw, supra , or by directly overruling the plain principle announced in Mayo v. Cotten as

1889We must acknowledge that there is some conflict between Adrian v. Shaw, 82 N. C., 474 , and the authorities there cited (Gheen v. Summey, 80 N. C., 187 , and Lambert v. Kinnery, 74 N. C., 348 ), on the one hand, and the cases of Hager v. Nixon, 69 N. C., 108 , and Mayo & Parker v. Cotten, 69 N. C., 289 , on the other; and the inconsistency of the authorities as to the true interpretation to be given to section 8, Article X, must be removed, either by modifying the abstract rule laid down in Adrian v. Shaw, supra, or by directly overruling the plain principle announced in Mayo v. Gotten as the

1889We must acknowledge that there is some conflict between Adrian v. Shaw , 82 N.C. 474 , and the authorities there cited ( Gheen v. Summey , 80 N.C. 187 , and Lambert v. Kinnery , 74 N.C. 348 ), on the one hand, and the cases of Hager v. Nixon , 69 N.C. 108 , and Mayo Parker v. Cotten , 69 N.C. 289 , on the other; and the inconsistency of the authorities as to the true interpretation to be given to section 8, Article X, must be removed, either by modifying the abstract rule laid down in *Page 196 Adrian v. Shaw, supra , or by directly overruling the plain principle announced in Mayo v. Cotten as

1889We must acknowledge that there is some conflict between Adrian v. Shaw, 82 N. C., 474 , and the authorities there cited (Gheen v. Summey, 80 N. C., 187 , and Lambert v. Kinnery, 74 N. C., 348 ), on the one hand, and the cases of Hager v. Nixon, 69 N. C., 108 , and Mayo & Parker v. Cotten, 69 N. C., 289 , on the other; and the inconsistency of the authorities as to the true interpretation to be given to section 8, Article X, must be removed, either by modifying the abstract rule laid down in Adrian v. Shaw, supra, or by directly overruling the plain principle announced in Mayo v. Gotten as the

1889We must acknowledge that there is some conflict between Adrian v. Shaw , 82 N.C. 474 , and the authorities there cited ( Gheen v. Summey , 80 N.C. 187 , and Lambert v. Kinnery , 74 N.C. 348 ), on the one hand, and the cases of Hager v. Nixon , 69 N.C. 108 , and Mayo Parker v. Cotten , 69 N.C. 289 , on the other; and the inconsistency of the authorities as to the true interpretation to be given to section 8, Article X, must be removed, either by modifying the abstract rule laid down in *Page 196 Adrian v. Shaw, supra , or by directly overruling the plain principle announced in Mayo v. Cotten as

1889We must acknowledge that there is some conflict between Adrian v. Shaw, 82 N. C., 474 , and the authorities there cited (Gheen v. Summey, 80 N. C., 187 , and Lambert v. Kinnery, 74 N. C., 348 ), on the one hand, and the cases of Hager v. Nixon, 69 N. C., 108 , and Mayo & Parker v. Cotten, 69 N. C., 289 , on the other; and the inconsistency of the authorities as to the true interpretation to be given to section 8, Article X, must be removed, either by modifying the abstract rule laid down in Adrian v. Shaw, supra, or by directly overruling the plain principle announced in Mayo v. Gotten as the