court of competent jurisdiction to command the performance of a specified official duty issued by law. See Sutton v. Figgatt, 280 N.C. 89, 92, 185 S.E.2d 97, 99 (1971). The writ may therefore still be issued by our courts, “and the substantive grounds for granting the remedy as developed under our former practice still control.” Fleming, 23 N.C. App. at 420, 209 S.E.2d at 368. The purpose of a writ of mandamus remains, however, a limited and extraordinary remedy to provide a swift enforcement of a party’s already established legal rights. “Mandamus will not lie unless the party seeking the writ has a clea o damages on any grounds since the repeal of the statutory authority for the writ. As our own Rules of Appellate Procedure indicate, mandamus is intended as a swift remedy, “file 917) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we find that the trial court
holding that an action to clear title of a false or fraudulent document that asserts an interest in real property may be joined with an action for damages under  33420a holding that the offense requires that the return be false as to a material matter holding that in an action for breach of contract only nominal damages can be recovered if there is no evidence produced from which the facts necessary to determine damages under the proper rule can be determined holding that district court erred in awarding attorneys fees in civil rights action where plaintiff only recovered 1 in nominal damages holding that absent a false return no damages could be recovered in an action for mandamus