¶1 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.
¶2 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.
¶3 Proceeding dismissed.