Griffith v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Forsyth County

• Decision Date: 26 April 1922
• Docket Number: (No. 353.)
• Citation: 112 S.E. 10
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: GRIFFITH et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FORSYTH COUNTY et al.

112 S.E. 10

GRIFFITH et al.

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FORSYTH COUNTY et al.

(No. 353.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 26, 1922.

Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; Lane, Judge.

Action by C. H. Griffith and others against the Board of Education of Forsyth County and others. From an order dissolving a temporary injunction, the plaintiffs appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Civil action to enjoin and restrain the holding of an election in a new and proposed consolidated school district composed of what was originally two contiguous and adjacent districts in Forsyth county, namely Bethania, a special tax district, and Old Town School district, a nonlocal tax district. The purpose of the election was to ascertain the will of the voters of the entire territory in regard to levying a special school tax for the said proposed district. The call for the election designated July 12, 1921, as the date upon which it should be held. A temporary restraining order was issued in this cause, same being afterwards dissolved on July 12, 1921, but it seems that the election was not held. From the order dissolving the temporary injunction, the plaintiffs appealed.

Holton & Holton and Jones & Clement, all of Winston-Salem, for appellants.

Hasting & Whicker and E. F. Cullon, all of Winston-Salem, for appellees.

STACY, J. [1] It appears that the purpose for which this action was instituted, to wit, to prevent the holding of the election in question, has been accomplished. At any rate, the election was not held, and there is nothing now to enjoin. McKinney v. Com'rs (Fla.) 3 South. 887. The time for holding the election has long since passed, and it cannot presently be held, under the previous action of the defendants. Nothing further can be done in the way of levying the proposed tax unless another election is called. The appeal, therefore must be dismissed. Kilpatrick v. Harvey, 170 N. C. 668, 86 S. E. 596; Moore v. Monument Co., 166 N. C. 212, 81 S. E. 170; Harrison v. Bryan, 148 N. C. 315, 62 S. E. 305.

Courts of equity are slow to enjoin the holding of elections, and ordinarily they will not do so, unless it is clear that they are being illegally held. Hood v. Sutton, 175 N. C. 101, 94 S. E. 686. The wisdom for this cautious exercise of such power is obvious. Conner v. Gray, 88 Miss. 489, 41 South. 186, 9 Ann. Cas. 121, and note. But it is generally held that an injunction will issue to restrain the holding of an election, where there is no authority for calling it, and where the holding of such an. election would result in a waste of public funds. Solomon v. Fleming, 34 Neb. 40, 51 N. W....