183, 189, 500 P.2d 771 (1972) (question of abolition of rule of interspousal tort immunity is properly a matter for the courts and need not await legislative action since "the rule is not one made or sanctioned by the legislature, but rather is one that depends for its origins and continued viability upon the common law"). Every jurisdiction that has thus far abolished the tort of alienation of a spouse's affections has done so legislatively. However, the mere fact that the legislatures in these other states abolished the cause of action before the question of abolition was properly presented to the respective courts, does not mean that every state court must wait for the legislature to focus its attention on this subject. See, e.g., Doe v. Doe,_Mass__, 390 N.E.2d 730, 732-33 (1979) (<HOLDING>); see also Bearbower v. Merry, 266 N.W.2d 128,
recognizing the supervisory power of appellate courts holding that the legislature which created the state board of education has the power to abolish modify and control it and therefore had the power to do away with the prerequisite that the senate affirm the governors appointments of all commissioners serving on the board recognizing the inherent power of the courts to issue warrants recognizing that the state courts have the power to abolish the tort of alienation of affections recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals