Case Name: A. C. JORDAN, for and on Behalf of Himself and Other Residents and Taxpayers of the HOPE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DURHAM COUNTY v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR DURHAM COUNTY, GEORGE P. KIRKLAND, FRANK H. KENAN, DEWEY S. SCARBORO, S. LeROY PROCTOR and EDWIN B. CLEMENTS and THE DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JOHN E. MARKHAM, O. C. WELLS and J. D. BOBBITT
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1957-01-11
Citations: 245 N.C. 290
Docket Number: 
Parties: A. C. JORDAN, for and on Behalf of Himself and Other Residents and Taxpayers of the HOPE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DURHAM COUNTY v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR DURHAM COUNTY, GEORGE P. KIRKLAND, FRANK H. KENAN, DEWEY S. SCARBORO, S. LeROY PROCTOR and EDWIN B. CLEMENTS and THE DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JOHN E. MARKHAM, O. C. WELLS and J. D. BOBBITT.
Judges: JOHNSON, J., not sitting.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 245
Pages: 290–296

Head Matter:
A. C. JORDAN, for and on Behalf of Himself and Other Residents and Taxpayers of the HOPE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DURHAM COUNTY v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR DURHAM COUNTY, GEORGE P. KIRKLAND, FRANK H. KENAN, DEWEY S. SCARBORO, S. LeROY PROCTOR and EDWIN B. CLEMENTS and THE DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JOHN E. MARKHAM, O. C. WELLS and J. D. BOBBITT.
(Filed 11 January, 1957.)
Schools § 3a—
Where a proper petition, signed by a majority of the qualified voters of an area less than a school district, for the annexation of the area to an adjoining city administrative unit, is approved by such city unit, the commissioners of the county have the ministerial duty, enforceable by mandamus, to call an election upon the question, even though the county board of education does not approve the petition, since the approval of the county board is necessary only in the absence of such petition. G.S. 115-116(3), G.S. 115-120, G.S. 115-121, G.S. 115-118. Continuance of a temporary order restraining the holding of such election is error.
Johnson, J., not sitting.
Bobbitt, J., dissenting.
Rodman, J., dissenting.
Appeal by defendants from Mallard, J., May Term 1956 of DuRHAM.
This is an action instituted in the Superior Court of Durham County by the plaintiff, A. C. Jordan, for and on behalf of himself and other (unnamed) residents and taxpayers of the Hope Valley School District of Durham County, against the defendants.
In September 1955, the Durham City School Board received a petition requesting that, pursuant to G.S. 115, Subchapter V, Article 14, an election be called to ascertain the will of the voters in the area designated by the petition regarding the enlargement of the Durham City School Administrative Unit. After due consideration, the Board, on 12 September 1955, approved the petition by endorsement of its chairman and secretary and recorded it in its minutes. The petition fully complied with G.S. 115-116(3); 115-118; 115-119 in that it contained the following:
(1) A statement of the purpose of calling the proposed election — ■ namely, to ascertain the will of the voters in the area as to whether the affected area should be consolidated with and annexed to the Durham City School Administrative Unit and whether there should be levied a special tax of the same rate as that in the Durham City School Administrative Unit.
(2) A description of the area, by metes and bounds, in which the proposed election was requested.
(3) That the maximum rate of tax proposed to be levied was 40 cents per 100 dollar valuation.
(4) That if a maj ority of those who voted thereon in such new territory voted in favor of a “local tax of the same rate” the said territory should become part of the Durham City School Administrative Unit, and that the term “local tax of the same rate” included in addition to the 40 cents current expense levy any tax levy to meet the interest and sinking funds of any school bonds heretofore issued by the Durham City School Administrative Unit.
(5) That the area proposed to be annexed to the Durham City School Administrative Unit is adjacent to said unit and could be included in a common boundary with said unit.
(6) That the petition was duly signed by a majority of the qualified voters who had resided for the preceding twelve months in the affected area.
The petition, as endorsed and approved by the Durham City School Board, was presented to the Durham County Board of Education on 3 October 1955, which, after due consideration of it, refused to endorse and approve same.
The Board of Commissioners of Durham County received the 'petition on 17 October 1955, and after full consideration thereof, adopted a resolution on 19 April 1956 calling for a special school election, as requested in the petition, to be held on 29 May 1956, in the affected area, pursuant to G.S. 115-120 and 115-121.
The plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order on 24 April 1956 to the effect that the “defendants herein be and they are hereby restrained, enjoined and forbidden until further orders of this court, to further proceed with the preparation for or the holding of said election and that the said defendants are hereby forbidden to do anything toward the preparation for and holding of said election until further ordered by this court.”
Upon notice to the defendants to show cause, if any, why the temporary restraining order should not be continued until the final hearing of this action, the court at the hearing on 10 May 1956 continued the restraining order until the final hearing. The defendants appeal, assigning error.
Reade, Fuller, Newsom & Graham for defendant appellants.
No counsel for plaintiff appellee.

Opinion:
DeNNy, J.
No question has been raised as to the form or substance of the petition, the endorsement of it by the Durham City School Board, or the validity of the signatures or the fact that such signatures are those of a majority of the qualified voters who resided in the affected area for the required length of time. The sole issue in this case is whether the Board of Commissioners of Durham County had authority to call an election in the affected area in spite of the fact that the petition had not been endorsed by the Durham County Board of Education.
The pertinent parts of the relevant statutes read as follows:
"To Enlarge City .Administrative Units and Districts. Elections may be called in any district or districts, or other school areas, of a county administrative unit to ascertain the will of the voters in such areas as to whether there shall be levied a special tax of the same rate as that voted in an adj oining city administrative unit or district with which unit or district such territory is to be consolidated." G.S. 115-116(3).
"The board of education to whom the petition requesting an election is addressed shall receive the petition and give it due consideration. If, in the discretion of the board of education, the petition for an election shall be approved, it shall be endorsed by the chairman and the secretary of the board and a record of the endorsement shall be made in the minutes of the board. Petitions for an election to enlarge a city administrative unit shall be subject to the approval and endorsement of both county and city board of education which are therein affected: Provided, that when such 'petition is endorsed by the city board of education and signed by a majority of the voters in the affected area, the election shall be called." G.S. 115-120. (Emphasis added.)
"Petitions requesting special school elections and bearing the approval of the board of education of the unit shall be presented to the board of county commissioners, and it shall be the duty of said board of county commissioners to call an election and fix the date for the same." G.S. 115-121.
G.S. 115-118 sets out various ways by which such petitions may be presented to the county board of commissioners, to wit: "County and city boards of education may petition the board of county commissioners for an election in their respective administrative units or for any school area or areas therein.
"In county administrative units, for any of the purposes enumerated in G.S. 115-116, the school committee of a district or a majority of the committees in an area including a number of districts, or a majority of the qualified voters who have resided for the preceding twelve months in a school area less than a district, and which area is adjacent to a city unit or a district to which it is desired to be annexed and which can be included in a common boundary with said unit or district. . . ."
It would seem necessary to have the petition for an election approved by both the county and the city board of education in order to authorize the county board of commissioners to call the election as requested in the petition, except where "a majority of the qualified voters who have resided for the preceding twelve months in a school area, less than a district, and which area is adjacent to a city unit or district to which it is desired to be annexed and which can be included in a common boundary with said unit or district," it is only necessary that the city board of education endorse the petition. G.S. 115-120.
In our opinion, upon the facts disclosed on this record, the duty imposed on the Board of Commissioners of Durham County, under G.S. 115-121, to call the election, is purely ministerial and might be enforced, in the event of a refusal to do so, by mandamus, and we so hold. Board of Education v. Commissioners, 189 N.C. 650, 127 S.E. 692.
The court below committed error in granting the temporary restraining order in this action, as well as in ordering the continuance of such order until the final hearing. The restraining order is hereby dissolved and the action will be dismissed.
Reversed.
JOHNSON, J., not sitting.