
    JOHN W. MARSHALL et al. v. TOWN OF KERNERSVILLE.
    (Filed 6 November, 1929.)
    Appeal and Error J a — Where allegations of complaint are not supported by evidence, judgment dissolving restraining order will be affirmed.
    AVhere a temporary restraining order has been granted against an assessment against property by a town for street improvements upon the grounds of insufficiency of petition, and that the assessments were confiscatory, the plaintiffs being some of those assessed who had not paid: HelO,, the refusal of the trial judge to continue the injunction to the hearing will be sustained on appeal in the absence of satisfactory evidence to support the determinative allegations of the complaint.
    Appeal by plaintiffs from Clement, J., at Chambers, 28 March, 1929. From Forsyth.
    Civil action to restrain the defendant from enforcing liens for street assessments.
    The street improvement work in question was commenced in October, 1924, and completed in February, 1926. The assessment roll was confirmed 10 March, 1926. Many assessments were paid as they became due, but others were not. Whereupon, in December, 1928, the defendant advertised the delinquent properties for sale. Plaintiffs instituted this action 5 January, 1929, to enjoin the sales, alleging that the petitions for said proposed improvements did not, in all cases, contain the requisite number of names and amount of feet frontage; that said petitions, therefore, were insufficient; that the assessments, judgments and liens are confiscatory and void in that they attempt to lay a charge on private property without due process of law, etc.
    It is further alleged, on information and belief, that there was lack of good faith, collusion and fraud on the part of the governing board of the defendant town in procuring the said petitions.
    In the absence of satisfactory evidence to support the determinative allegations of the complaint, the temporary restraining order was dissolved and the action dismissed.
    The plaintiffs appeal, assigning errors.
    
      William Porter, J. E. Alexander and L. ill. Butler for plaintiffs.
    
    
      Mor ¿head & Murdock for defendant.
    
   Per Curiam.

No sufficient cause having been shown for disturbing the judgment, the same is

Affirmed.  