In Re Eubanks

Supreme Court of North Carolina

In Re Eubanks

162 S.E. 769, 202 N.C. 357, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 503

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 9, 1932·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The petitioner is not asking to have his matrimonial status declared, as was the case in Baumann v. Baumann, 250 N. Y., 382, nor his legitimacy established, as appeared in Beresford v. Attorney-General, L. R. (1918) Prob., 33, note 12 A. L. R., 86. See, also, note, 68 A. L. R., 129. He seeks only to have his racial status determined in an ex parte proceeding with no contradicter present. Primarily, his purpose partakes of a social matter rather than a legal controversy.

The proceeding is not within the scope or purview of the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, chap. 102, Public Laws 1931. Poore v. Poore, 201 N. C., 791, 161 S. E., 532.

Proceeding dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Stacy, C. J.

The petitioner is not asking to have his matrimonial status declared, as was the case in Baumann v. Baumann, 250 N. Y., 382, nor his legitimacy established, as appeared in Beresford v. Attorney-General, L. R. (1918) Prob., 33, note 12 A. L. R., 86. See, also, note, 68 A. L. R., 129. He seeks only to have his racial status determined in an ex parte proceeding with no contradicter present. Primarily, his purpose partakes of a social matter rather than a legal controversy.

The proceeding is not within the scope or purview of the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, chap. 102, Public Laws 1931. Poore v. Poore, 201 N. C., 791, 161 S. E., 532.

Proceeding dismissed.

In Re Eubanks, 162 S.E. 769, 202 N.C. 357, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 503 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

162 S.E. 769 (In Re Eubanks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related