The opinion
Barnhill, J.
The basis of plaintiff’s cause of action is the alleged unconstitutionality of H. B. 652 of the 1945 session of the Legislature and the consequent invalidity of the resolution or ordinance adopted by the defendants under authority thereof. He seeks in this manner to present that question for decision. The court below declined to render judgment thereon, but instead dismissed the petition. This was in accord with well-recognized principles of law and procedure prevailing in this jurisdiction.
Mandamus
lies only for one who has a specific legal right and who is without any other adequate legal remedy. 1 Chitty’s Practice, 790;
S. v. Justices,
24 N. C., 430 ;
Edgerton v. Kirby,
156 N. C., 347 , 72 S. E., 365 ;
Barnes v. Commissioners,
135 N. C., 27 ;
Lyon v. Commissioners,
120 N. C., 237 ;
Tucker v. Justices,
46 N. C., 451 ;
Hayes v. Benton,
193 N. C., 379 , 137 S. E., 169 ;
Braddy v. Winston-Salem,
201 N. C., 301 , 159 S. E., 310 ;
School District v. Alamance County,
211 N. C., 213 , 189 S. E., 873 ;
Harris v. Board of Education,
216 N. C., 147 , 4 S. E. (2d), 328 .
Ordinarily equity will not interfere with the enforcement of a municipal ordinance, since, if valid, plaintiff cannot complain, and, if not, its invalidity may be attacked in an action at law.
Scott v. Smith,
121 N. C., 94 ;
Crawford v. Marion,
154 N. C., 73 , 69 S. E., 763 ;
R. R. v. Morehead City,
167 N. C., 118 , 83 S. E., 259 ;
Turner v. New Bern,
187 N. C., 541 , 122 S. E., 469 ;
Thompson v. Town of Lumberton,
182 N. C., 260 , 108 S. E., 722 ;
S. v. R. R.,
145 N. C., 495 ;
Paul v. Washington,
134 N. C., 363 ;
Chappell v. Mowery,
202 N. C., 584 , 163 S. E., 565 ;
McCormick v. Proctor,
217 N. C., 23 , 6 S. E. (2d), 870 .
Nor will equity interfere to test the validity of an alleged unlawful or invalid municipal ordinance enforceable only by indictment.
Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co. v. Sanford,
200 N. C., 467 , 157 S. E., 432 ;
Flemming v. City of Asheville,
205 N. C., 765 , 172 S. E., 362 ;
Ry. Co. v. Raleigh,
219 Fed., 573 , affirmed 242 U. S., 15 , 61 L. Ed., 121 ;
S. v. R. R., supra; Turner v. New Bern, supra; Thompson v. Town of Lumberton, supra.
*433
If tbe statute under which defendants acted is valid, they acted in the exercise of a discretionary power in adopting the ordinance. It is not the function of the Court to reverse or direct the reversal of decisions made by administrative officers in the exercise of discretionary powers.
Pue v. Hood,
222 N. C., 310 , 22 S. E. (2d), 896 ;
Mullen v. Louisburg,
225 N. C., 53 ;
Reed v. Highway Com.,
209 N. C., 648 , 184 S. E., 513 ;
Lee v. Waynesville,
184 N. C., 565 , 115 S. E., 51 .
Nor will review of their decisions, once made, be compelled by judicial mandate.
Barnes v. Commissioners, supra; Wilkinson v. Board of Education,
199 N. C., 669 , 155 S. E., 562 ;
Harden v. Raleigh,
192 N. C., 395 , 135 S. E., 151 ;
Fisher v. Commissioners,
166 N. C., 238 , 81 S. E., 1065 ;
Britt v. Board of Canvassers,
172 N. C., 797 , 90 S. E., 1005 ;
Board of Education v. Board of Commissioners,
178 N. C., 305 , 100 S. E., 698 ;
Board of Education v. Comrs.,
189 N. C., 650 , 127 S. E., 692 ;
Pue v. Hood, supra; Mullen v. Louisburg, supra.
If the statute is unconstitutional the resolution of defendants is invalid. Plaintiff did not surrender his license. He still has it in his possession. If defendants undertake in any manner to enforce the resolution or to prevent plaintiff from exercising the privileges granted by his license, he has an adequate remedy at law. He may not resort to
mandamus
or to mandatory injunction to test the constitutionality of the statute or the validity of the resolution in anticipation of an effort to enforce it.
Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co. v. Sanford, supra; Flemming v. City of Asheville, supra; Thompson v. Town of Lumberton, supra; S. v. R. R., supra; Turner v. New Bern, supra; Latham v. Harris,
194 N. C., 802 , 139 S. E., 773 .
The constitutionality of an Act or ordinance will not be determined in a suit to enjoin its enforcement. Nor will we decide the question of its constitutionality prior to an attempt to enforce it.
Latham v. Harris, supra.
As said by
Brogden, J.,
in
Barton v. Grist,
193 N. C., 144 , 136 S. E., 344 : “For the Court to declare invalid an unenforced statute would be equivalent to passing upon a ‘mere abstraction.’” See also
Goldsboro v. Supply Co.,
200 N. C., 405 , 157 S. E., 58 , where that part of the judgment declaring an ordinance invalid was ordered stricken.
Absolute necessity is the moving cause for decision.
Burton v. U. S.,
196 U. S., 283 , 49 L. Ed., 482 .
For the reasons stated the judgment below is
Affirmed.