The petitioners, alleging themselves to be “patrons of the Cartersville public school system and/or taxpayers of the City of Cartersville,” brought this action against the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Cartersville. Their petition alleged the following: On June 8, 1956, the defendants passed an ordinance providing that no school budget or supplemental budget should be submitted and none should be considered or approved by the board of aldermen until the same was first approved in writing by the superintendent of public schools and the board of education of the city. The defendants have instituted proceedings to effect the removal of four members of the city’s board of education, said proceedings being based upon trumped-up, fabricated charges. The above ordinance is illegal and void and was passed to make the Cartersville Board of Education subordinate to the dictates and wishes of the superintendent of the public schools of the city; to deprive the board of authority to carry out its legal obligations; to embarrass and harrass the board in its administration of the city’s schools; to promote the resignation of certain board members; to impose upon the board the dictatorial wishes of the superintendent. The trial of the board members under the alleged trumped-up charges will create discord, dissension, and general disruption of the operation of the Cartersville schools, and the petitioners fear the removal of Cartersville’s schools from the Southern Accredited List of Secondary Schools should such trial be concluded. Petitioners have no adequate remedy at law to protect their interest in the orderly operation of the public-school system and to prevent the damages that will result from removing the Cartersville public schools from the Southern Accredited List. The prayers were that the ordinance passed on June 6, 1956, be declared null and void, and that the defendants be temporarily and permanently restrained from proceeding with the trial of the four members of the city board of education. Upon *30 a hearing of the demurrers filed by the defendants, the trial court sustained the general demurrer, but declared the ordinance above referred to null and void. The plaintiffs in error except to the sustaining of the defendants’ general demurrer. The defendants in error have filed a motion to dismiss so much of the plaintiff in error’s appeal as requires for consideration the action of the trial court in ruling that the section of the above ordinance is null and void which requires the budget submitted by the board to be first approved by the superintendent of schools. The motion is predicated upon the ground that such question has become moot, inasmuch as the board of aldermen, on August 3, 1956, passed an ordinance striking from the ordinance of June 8, 1956, that portion which was declared null and void by the trial court. Held:
1. Whether or not the question referred to in the motion to dismiss has become moot, the petitioners in the trial court contended that paragraph 3 of the ordinance was null and void, and prayed that it be so declared, which the trial court did. Though the petitioners except to the sustaining of the defendants’ general demurrer, the exception thereto does not require a ruling by this court upon decisions by the trial court which are favorable to the excepting party.
Hardin
v.
Almand,
64
Ga.
582 (4);
Southern Cotton Oil Co.
v.
Thomas,
155
Ga.
99 (5) (
2. The petitioners bring this action for injunctive relief, alleging themselves to be “patrons of the Cartersville public school system and/or taxpayers of the City of Cartersville.” The use of the equivocal term “and/or” has been often criticized.
Henderson
v.
Nolting First Mtge. Co.,
184
Ga.
724, 734 (
Judgment affirmed.
