Case Name: L. J. PENLAND, BRUCE COWAN and FOREST PAINTER v. TOM GOWAN, Chairman, WILL HAWKINS, Member, and DR. B. A. DICKSON, Member, of the COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF McDOWELL COUNTY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1948-11-10
Citations: 229 N.C. 449
Docket Number: 
Parties: L. J. PENLAND, BRUCE COWAN and FOREST PAINTER v. TOM GOWAN, Chairman, WILL HAWKINS, Member, and DR. B. A. DICKSON, Member, of the COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF McDOWELL COUNTY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 229
Pages: 449–450

Head Matter:
L. J. PENLAND, BRUCE COWAN and FOREST PAINTER v. TOM GOWAN, Chairman, WILL HAWKINS, Member, and DR. B. A. DICKSON, Member, of the COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF McDOWELL COUNTY.
(Filed 10 November, 1948.)
Appeal and Error § 31 e—
Where an election sought to be enjoined has been held, an appeal from judgment denying injunctive relief against the holding of the election will be dismissed, since the questions sought to be presented by the appeal have become academic.
Appeal by plaintiffs from Moore, J., September Term, 1948, McDowell.
Civil action for writ of injunction to restrain the holding of a special election under Chap. 1084, Session Laws, 1947-
When the cause came on for hearing in the court below, trial by jury was waived and the cause was submitted to the judge with full authority to hear the evidence, find the facts, and enter judgment upon the facts found. Tlie court, after finding the facts, entered judgment denying the injunctive relief prayed and dismissing the action. Plaintiffs excepted and appealed.
John C. Cheesborough and George Sandlin for plaintiff appellants.
Proctor <& Dameron for defendant appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
A careful examination of the pleadings in this cause discloses that a writ of injunction is the only relief sought by plaintiffs. The only issue of fact raised in the pleadings is directed to the right of the plaintiffs to this relief. The election they seek to enjoin was held 31 August, 1948, and is now an accomplished fact. Hence, the questions plaintiffs seek to present on this appeal are academic. For that reason, the appeal is dismissed on authority of Eller v. Wall, ante, 359, and the cases there cited.
Appeal dismissed.