Poore v. Poore
MRS. GEORGE F. POORE Et Al. v. ROBERT R. POORE
Opinion of the Court
Stacy, C. J.
Tbe parties have misconceived tbe scope of tbe Declaratory Judgment Act, chap. 102, Public Laws 1931. It does not extend to tbe submission of a theoretical problem or a “mere abstraction.”
Barton v. Grist, 193 N. C., 144 , 136 S. E., 344 . If it did, its validity might well be doubted.
In re Cryan's Estate, 301 Pa., 386 , 152 Atl., 675 . It is no part of tbe function of tbe courts, in tbe exercise of tbe judicial power vested in them by the Constitution, to give advisory opinions, or to answer moot questions, or to maintain a legal bureau for those who may chance to be interested, for the time being, in the pursuit of some academic matter.
Wood v. Braswell, 192 N. C., 588 , 135 S. E., 529 ;
Person v. Doughton, 186 N. C., 723 , 120 S. E., 481 ;
Muskrat v. U.
S., 219 U. S., 346 , 55 L. Ed., 246 . See valuable article by Dean M. T. Yan Hecke in North Carolina Law Review, December, 1931, entitled, “The North Carolina Declaratory Judgment Act.”
It is provided by C. S., 4163 that no paper-writing or script, purporting to be a will, shall be valid as such, or effectual to pass any real or personal property, unless and until it is duly probated.
Osborne v. Leah, 89 N. C., 433 . And when a paper-writing or script, purporting to be a will, is properly admitted to probate, it becomes a valid will, until vacated on appeal or declared void by a competent tribunal. C. S., 4145;
Holt v. Ziglar, 163 N. C., 390 , 79 S. E., 805 .
So, regardless of bow we might answer the question propounded, it would in nowise determine tbe validity or invalidity of the paper-writing or script mentioned as the joint and mutual will of George E. Poore and Annie E. Poore.
In re Davis’ Will, 120 N. C., 9 , 26 S. E., 636 . It has *793 not yet been offered for probate. Furthermore, it was admitted on the argument, and also appears from an inspection of the record, that only beneficiaries under the will are parties to this proceeding. The presence of a proper contradicter may be doubted (Freeman on Judgments, sec. 1356), but we put aside any consideration of the Declaratory Judgment Act, further than to say that the present proceeding is not within its terms.
Proceeding dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 10 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that it will not decide moot questions because "[i]t is no part of the function of the courts, in the exercise of the judicial power vested in them by the Constitution, to ... answer moot questions....")
-
(noting that if the Act were to permit the court to issue advisory opinions, “its validity might well be doubted.” (citations omitted))
-
(Declaratory Judgment Act "does not extend to the submission of a theoretical problem or a `mere abstraction' ")
-
(“It is no part of the function of the courts . . . to give advisory opinions . . . .”)
-
(“[T]he principle which protects the jurisdiction of the Court from the[se] invasions and keeps its decisions within the traditional judicial functions is the presence of a genuine controversy . . . .”)
Cited by 52 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.