We think the parties have misconceived their rights and remedies. What the plaintiffs really want is advice and direction of a court of equity in the administration of a testamentary trust. Yet, under a will which specifically withholds from the plaintiffs the right to sell the trust property, authority is sought in a proceeding under the Declaratory Judgment Act, G. S., 1-253-267, “to sell, mortgage, and/or lease” said property subject to the orders of the court; and this in the face of a provision in the will that if the plaintiffs “fail or neglect to. execute the trust and conditions herein required of them” the trust property “shall pass over and become vested in the Trustees of Davidson College,” in trust and on condition stated.
The problem confronting the plaintiffs is how to invoke the aid of a court of equity without evoking the devise over. This question was not mooted on the hearing. 16 Am. Jur., 282. Nor was it apparently in mind when the pleadings were drawn. The heirs of the testator have- no present interest in the matter, and the issues raised by them would seem to belong exclusively to the plaintiffs and the Trustees of Davidson College. The real parties in interest have apparently refrained from joining issue in the matter.
While proceedings under Art. 26 of the General Statutes- — -Declaratory Judgments — have been given a wide latitude, Insurance Co. v. Wells, 225 N. C., 547, 35 S. E. (2d), 631; Johnson v. Wagner, 219 N. C., 235, 13 S. E. (2d), 419, nevertheless they are not without limitation, and it can hardly be said the court is expected to lend its general equity jurisdiction to such proceedings. 16 Am. Jur., 291. The purpose of the statutory enactment is to grant “declaratory relief” and remove uncertainties when properly presented. G. S., 1-256; Light Co. v. Iseley, 203 N. C., 811, 167 S. E., 56; Walker v. Phelps, 202 N. C., 344, 163 S. E., 726. Here, the plaintiffs are seeking to go far beyond the mere declaration of their rights, or obtaining direction “to do or abstain from doing any particular act in their fiduciary capacity.” G. S., 1-255. *332They frankly concede the necessity of invoking the general equity powers of the court. Their most pressing need just now would seem to be an escape from some of the allegations of the complaint. Jones v. Habersham, 107 U. S., 179, 27 L. Ed., 401. This we are disposed to grant by vacating the judgment and dismissing the proceeding as being in excess of the statutory authorization therefor. Tryon v. Power Co., 222 N. C., 200, 22 S. E. (2d), 450; 16 Am. Jur., 302; 87 A. L. R., 1205.
Judgment vacated; proceeding dismissed.
Denny, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.