almost universal rule in North Carolina

1934In S. v. Frazier, it is said: “This Court in S. v. Jeffries, 117 N. C., 727 , said: 'There are some few exceptions to the almost universal rule of law that evidence of a distinct substantive offense cannot be admitted in support of another offense.’ The exceptions to the rule are to be found in those cases in which testimony concerning independent offenses has been admitted because of the necessity of proving the quo ammo, or the guilty knowledge of the defendant and also for purposes of identification of the defendant.” *644 None of the defendant’s numerous exceptions to the charge of the cou

1924In S. v. Frazier , 118 N.C. 1258 , it is said: "The Court in S. v. Jeffries , 117 N.C. 727 , said: "There are some few exceptions to the almost universal rule of law, that evidence of a distinct substantive offense cannot be admitted in support of another offense.' The exceptions to the rule are to be found in those cases in which testimony concerning independent offenses has been admitted because of the necessity *Page 723 of proving the quo animo , or the guilty knowledge of the defendant, and also for the purpose of identification of the defendant." S. v. Griffith , 185 N.C. 760 .

1918The almost universal rule may thus be summed up: "Wills of personal property must be executed and probated according to the law of the domicile; but wills devising real estate must be executed and probated in compliance with the law of the State where the land lies." In Thrasher v. Ballard , 33 W.

1918The almost universal rule may thus be summed up: “Wills of personal property must be executed and probated according to the law of the ■domicile; but wills devising real estate must be executed and probated in compliance with the law of the State where the land lies.” In Thrasher v. Ballard, 33 W.

2006In Concrete Service Corp., this Court stated that "`[i]t is an almost universal rule that a verdict will cure defects in the pleadings unless the substantial rights of the adverse party have been prejudiced.'" 79 N.C.App. at 682 , 340 S.E.2d at 758 (quoting 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal & Error § 795 (1962)).

2006In Concrete Service Corp., this Court stated that "`[i]t is an almost universal rule that a verdict will cure defects in the pleadings unless the substantial rights of the adverse party have been prejudiced.'" 79 N.C.App. at 682 , 340 S.E.2d at 758 (quoting 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal & Error § 795 (1962)).

2006Id. at 766 n. 1., 433 S.E.2d at 486 n. 1.

1986This rule was applied in Morgan v. Roper, 250 S.C. 280 , 157 S.E.2d 572 (1967), the court holding that defendants could not complain that the trial court overruled their demurrer following judgment on the merits against them.

1986This rule was applied in Morgan v. Roper, 250 S.C. 280 , 157 S.E.2d 572 (1967), the court holding that defendants could not complain that the trial court overruled their demurrer following judgment on the merits against them.

1924In S. v. Davis , 77 N.C. 483 , an opinion written by Bynum, J. , it was held that "evidence that a third party had malice towards the deceased, a motive to take his life and an opportunity to do so, and had made threats against him, and that some time before deceased was killed he went in the direction of deceased's house with a deadly weapon, threatening to kill him, was inadmissible." S. v. Lane , 166 N.C. 338 ; S. v. Fogleman , 164 N.C. 461 .

1924In S. v. Davis, 77 N. C., 483 , an opinion written by Bynum, J., it was held that “evidence that a third party had malice towards the deceased, a motive to take his life and an opportunity to do so, and had made threats against him, and that some time before deceased was killed he went in the direction of deceased’s house with a deadly weapon, threatening to kill him, was inadmissible.” S. v. Lane, 166 N. C., 338 ; S. v. Fogleman, 164 N. C., 461. ¥e have carefully considered 20, 21, 22 and 23 assignments of error, relating to defendant’s prayers for instructions.

1924In S. v. Frazier , 118 N.C. 1258 , it is said: "The Court in S. v. Jeffries , 117 N.C. 727 , said: "There are some few exceptions to the almost universal rule of law, that evidence of a distinct substantive offense cannot be admitted in support of another offense.' The exceptions to the rule are to be found in those cases in which testimony concerning independent offenses has been admitted because of the necessity *Page 723 of proving the quo animo , or the guilty knowledge of the defendant, and also for the purpose of identification of the defendant." S. v. Griffith , 185 N.C. 760 .

1924In S. v. Frazier, 118 N. C., 1258 , it is said: “The Court in S. v. Jeffries, 117 N. C., 727 , said: ‘There are some few exceptions to the almost universal rule of law, that evidence of a distinct substantive offense cannot be admitted in support of another offense.’ The exceptions to the rule are to be found in those cases in which testimony concerning independent offenses has been admitted because of the necessity of proving the quo animo, or tbe guilty knowledge of the defendant, and also for the purpose of identification of the defendant.” S. v. Griffith, 185 N. C., 760 .

1892Smith v. Railroad, 64 N. C., 235 ; 4 Lawson on R.