
    J. J. HECKERT et al. v. ABERDEEN GRADED SCHOOL.
    (Filed 13 December, 1922.)
    1. Schools — School Districts — Consolidation—Nontax Territory — Election —Taxation Bonds — Injunction.
    An exception to the issuance of bonds for school purposes by a district consolidated of special tax and nonspecial tax territory, on the ground that the question of taxation had not been separately submitted to the voters of the nontax territory, is untenable, when it appears from the record, on appeal, that the votes cast in the nontax territory, had been separately counted, and found to be in favor of the proposition to issue the bonds, sought to be enjoined in the plaintiff’s suit. Board of Edueation v. Bray, post, 484; Barnes v. Gomrs., mite, 325.
    2. Same — Notice of Election — Publication—Appeal and Error.
    The issuance and sale of bonds for school purposes by a school district may not be successfully attacked on the ground that the notice of election was insufficient, when it is properly made to appear that, in accordance with the order of the board of commissioners, it had been previously advertised for four successive weeks in a newspaper published in the district; personal notice had been mailed to the individual electors therein; that wide publicity had been given it; that fair opportunity had been given the electors to cast their votes, and that practically a full registration had been obtained, which resulted in an overwhelming vote in favor of the proposition submitted.
    Appeal by plaintiffs from Broch, J., at chambers in Wadesboro, 30 November, 1922, from Mooee.
    Civil action to restrain the defendants from issuing and offering for sale certain school bonds, upon the alleged ground that the elections, under which the district in question was enlarged and the bonds approved by a majority of the qualified voters resident within the enlarged district, were illegally held, and are therefore void.
    From an order denying the application for relief, plaintiffs appealed.
    
      ■J. L. Morehead for plaintiffs.
    
    
      U. L. Spence for defendants.
    
   Stagy, J.

On 5 June, 1922, the trustees of the Aberdeen Graded School District petitioned the board of education and board of commissioners of Moore County to enlarge the boundaries of said district and to include therein certain contiguous territory, which embraced Pine Bluff Graded School District and other territory, in which there was not levied at that time any special tax for schools. Pursuant to this petition, an election was ordered and held on 11 July, 1922, in the territory proposed to be annexed; that is, 'in the Pine Bluff district and in tbe nonspecial tax territory, and at said election a majority of tbe qualified voters resident in tbe territory to be added voted in favor of tbe enlargement. C. S., 5478, and C. S„ 5530.

After tbe result of tbe election bad been declared by tbe board of commissioners, tbe trustees of tbe Aberdeen Graded Scbool District petitioned for an election for tbe purpose of issuing $75,000 of scbool bonds of tbe enlarged district. Tbis election was duly ordered to be beld on 12 September, 1922, and at said election 180 out of 223 qualified voters voted in favor of tbe issuance of tbe bonds, and 10 against it. Tbis was comparatively a large vote out of practically a full registration.

At both of these elections a new registration of tbe voters was ordered for tbe territory voting at said elections. Notice of tbe new registration for tbe election of 11 July, 1922, was first published on 5 June, 1922, and tbe registration books were kept open from 8 June, 1922, to 1 July, 1922. For tbe election of 12 September, 1922, tbe first notice of tbe new registration was published on 11 August, 1922, and tbe registration boobs were kept open from 10 August, 1922, to 2 September, 1922.

Plaintiffs contend that tbe election for tbe enlargement of tbe Aberdeen Graded Scbool District was invalid for tbe reason that tbe voters of tbe Pine Bluff Scbool District and tbe nonspecial tax territory, both being included in tbe addition, were not each given tbe opportunity of voting separately upon tbe proposed enlargement, but that such vote was taken in tbe entire new territory as a whole.

Without suggesting any merit for tbis contention, we think it becomes academic in tbe face of an affirmative showing, as appears from tbe record, that a majority of tbe qualified voters resident in tbe Pine Bluff District and tbe original nonspecial tax territory, counting tbe votes cast in each separately, voted in favor of both propositions in both elections. Board of Education v. Bray, post, 484; Barnes v. Comrs., ante, 325.

Tbe second contention of tbe plaintiffs is that tbe notices given in regard to tbe new registration were insufficient. Notice of each election was duly posted and published in tbe Sandhill Citizen, a newspaper published in tbe district, for four successive weeks, as required by tbe order of tbe board of commissioners; and, in addition thereto, notices in tbe form of letters were mailed to each of tbe voters, and a full and free expression bad in both elections. Wide publicity was given throughout tbe district in both elections, and, as a result, a large majority cast their ballots in favor of tbe enlargement of the district, and tbe issuance of tbe bonds. We think tbis objection must be overruled on authority of Hill v. Skinner, 169 N. C., 405; Briggs v. Raleigh, 166 N. C., 149; Younts v. Comrs., 151 N. C., 582. See, also, Miller v. School District, ante, 197.

The object of notice, both of the registration and election, is to give every qualified voter a free and fair opportunity to express his opinion on the question submitted to the people for their approval or disapproval; and there is no suggestion or allegation that this was not done in the instant case, nor that the result would have been otherwise if further notice had been given. Each voter was given personal notice by mail in addition to the published notices; and a large majority of them did register and vote. The registration books were kept open from 8 June to 1 July in the first election, and from 11 August to 2 September in the second election. “The failure to give notice for the full time before an election required by statute will not render the election invalid, if there were sufficient notice thereof and a full vote.” 10 A. & E. (2 ed.), 630.

The judgment upholding the validity of the consolidation and the proposed issue of bonds must be sustained.

Affirmed.  