The opinion
*13
Allen, J.
The statutory requirements in regard to bolding elections to authorize the issue of bonds, have not been complied with'to the letter, but the agreed facts show more than usual caution to give full and ample notice of the new registration and of the time and place for bolding the elections, and it does not appear that any one has been deprived of bis right to register and vote by reason of the irregularities, or that any voter or taxpayer of Lumber or Maxton townships is now registering the issue of the bonds.
On the contrary, it is fair to presume that all the taxpayers are content with the result of the elections, since no action has been instituted in their behalf, no application has been made for them to be parties to the present action, and the only complaining party is .the defendant, who has no standing in Court except as a purchaser of the bonds.
The irregularities are not sufficient to invalidate the bonds, in the absence of fraud, and none is alleged or suggested.
“Where an election appears to have been fairly and honestly conducted, it will not be invalidated by mere irregularities which are not shown to have affected the result, for in the absence of fraud the courts are disposed to give effect to .elections when possible. And it has even been held that gross irregularities not amounting to fraud do not vitiate an election.” 15 Cyc., 372.
“It is clear that since an entire failure to give the special notice required by a statute does not necessarily avoid a general election, an imperfect or defective notice which does not mislead electors so that they lose the right to exercise their franchise, certainly will not do so. And it is equally clear in the case of special elections wherein the necessity for notice is so much more urgent, that the rule as to compliance with statutory requirements in the giving of notice should be much more strictly enforced. Considerable liberality is, however, allowed even in these elections, and it is a rule of pronounced authority that the particular form and manner pointed out by a statute for giving notice is not essential, provided, however, there has been a substantial compliance with statutory provisions. Following this rule, it has been held that where the great body of the electors have actual notice of the time and place of bolding the election, and of the questions submitted, this is sufficient; and so the formalities of giving notice, although prescribed by statute, are frequently considered directory merely in the absence of an express declaration that the election shall be void unless the formalities are observed. This liberal rule is based upon the theory that where the people have actually expressed themselves at the polls the courts are strongly inclined to uphold rather than to defeat the popular will.” 9 R. C. L., 992.
“An irregularity in the conduct of an election which does not deprive
*14
a voter of bis rights or admit a disqualified person to vote, which casts no uncertainty on the result, and which was not caused by the agency of one seeking to derive a benefit from the result of the election, will be overlooked when the only question is which vote was greatest. The same principles are applicable to the rules regulating the registration of electors.”
Briggs v.
Raleigh, 166 N. C., 153 .
The same principle was applied and an issue of bonds sustained in
Hill v. Skinner,
169 N. C., 411, which was an action by the taxpayer in which there was a special election and a new registration ordered, and the notice of the new registration was only published fifteen days and the registration books kept open eight days, when the statutory requirement in the first instance was thirty days, and in the second, twenty, irregularities more serious than in the present one.
We are of opinion the bonds are valid, and.that the judgment must be
Affirmed.