
    E. D. CARSTARPHEN v. TOWN OF PLYMOUTH et al.
    (Filed 15 September, 1920.)
    Municipal Corporations — Sale of Public Building — Jail—Notice—Approval of Voters — Injunction.
    In tbe absence of a special statute, tbe mayor and councilmen of a town are unauthorized to sell tbe only building of tbe town in wbicb tbe jail and municipal offices, etc., are located, without having given tbe thirty days notice required by Rev., 2978, or tbe approval of tbe qualified voters of tbe town, Rev., 2916 (6), and in sucb instances a permanent injunction is proper.
    Appeal by defendants from Cranmer, J., at July Term, 1920, of WASHINGTON.
    
      Majette & Whitley for plaintiff.
    
    
      Ward & Grimes, Vance Norman, and Van B. Martin for defendant.
    
   OlaeK, C. J.

Tbis is an action by tbe plaintiff, a citizen and taxpayer of Plymouth, against tbe mayor and councilmen to restrain tbe sale by them of a brick building owned by tbe town, in wbicb is located tbe office of tbe mayor, tbe office of tbe chief of police, tbe town lock-up, tbe city market, and tbe city ball. Tbis building is located upon land conveyed by j Arthur Rhodes and wife to tbe trustees of tbe town of Plymouth in 1790. Said building is tbe only building owned or used by tbe town for tbe above purposes.

On 21 January, 1920, tbe mayor and board of councilmen passed a resolution looking to tbe sale of tbe said property, and tbe following night, at a public meeting attended by seventy-five citizens of Plymouth and others, bids were received, tbe last and highest bid being $13,251, by S. A. Ward, who is also a party defendant herein. Before tbe sale was consummated, a restraining order in tbis case was issued by Lyon, J.

Said sale, or attempted sale, was not made after thirty days public notice, as required by Rev., 2978. Tbe Court finds tbe above facts, and beld that tbe mayor and couneilmen were witbont authority to sell tbe said property, and decreed that tbe restraining order theretofore granted should be made permanent.

This judgment is in accordance with Southport v. Stanly, 125 N. C., 464. There is no special act authorizing the sale. There was no approval by a majority of the qualified voters of the said town, under Rev., 2916 (6).

Affirmed.  