without unreasonable delay” by the party seeking relief. N.C.R. App. P. 22(b). As the underlying history of the writ demonstrates, the remedy should be promptly sought for enforcement of the improperly denied legal right. An award of damages for delay in compliance with the legal duty is therefore not authorized in North Carolina in an action for the writ of mandamus. Further, although not controlling authority, decisions of our sister jurisdictions provide guidance on this question of first impression. We find that other jurisdictions which, like North Carolina, lack specific statutory authority for award of damages in a mandamus action have similarly determined such a right does not exist as a matter of law. See Hayes v. Civ. Ser. Com’n of Metro Gov., 907 S.W.2d 826 (Tenn. App. 1995) (<HOLDING>), see also Smith v. Berryman, 199 S.W. 165 (Mo.
holding that plaintiffs who sought injunctive relief under 42 usc  1983 could get same relief in a state court mandamus action recognizing petitioner for writ of mandamus must demonstrate clear legal right to the act sought to be compelled and no other plain speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary cause of law and stating mandamus may not be issued to compel an officials discretionary acts holding mandamus available to protect legislative continuance recognizing in the context of a petition for a writ of mandamus that although the district court retained jurisdiction over the case following the governments mandamus petition the district court justifiably could defer trial until resolution of the appellate proceedings had the government prevailed on the merits of the mandamus petition  the trial strategies of the government as well as the defense would surely have been altered holding when the state statute did not abrogate the common law rule the only available damage remedy in a mandamus action was one for making a false return and damages for the delay in doing the thing the mandamus sought to command could not be sought in the mandamus action