TERRELL, Justice.

The legislature of 1951 enacted Chapter 27773, Sp.Acts 1951, said act being a new charter for North Bay Village. One of its provisions was that "This Charter shall become effective upon its approval at a referendum election to be called by the Village Council of North Bay Village, Florida". The charter of North Bay Village provides for a council of five members, but it appears that the places of two members had been declared vacant, and that no successors had been appointed.

June 23, 1951, two of the remaining councilmen advertised a meeting for the purpose of calling a referendum election to approve the new charter. All three members of the council were notified, but only two attended the meeting which called the referendum election for a day certain. The election was regularly held and resulted in approval of the new charter by a vote of 81 to 12.

In December 1951, appellants filed their bill for declaratory decree in which the foregoing and other facts were recited. The bill prayed that the Court construe Chapter 27773, Sp.Acts of 1951, and determine whether or not the new charter was legally adopted by the referendum election, and if so, whether or not the council should be operating under the new charter. The bill also prayed that in the event the Court concludes that the new charter was not legally adopted, it determine whether or not appellants were, on February 21, 1951, elected for a four or two year term. On final hearing the chancellor found and decreed that the referendum election was not legally called, and being so, it was illegal and void. This appeal was prosecuted.

The only point we are required to determine is whether or not the referendum election was legal and amounted to an approval of the new charter.

There is no dispute about the facts. It is admitted that when the election was called, North Bay Village had three councilmen and no more, that two of them called the referendum, that the third man was notified of the meeting to make the call, but did not attend. It is also admitted that the election was held on the date announced, that it was regular, and that a majority of the electors voted to approve the charter.

Appellees take the position that the law of this case was settled by Clark v. North Bay Village (Hurt v. Clark) Fla., 54 So.2d 240. In this case we held that two councilmen did not compose a governing body, de jure or de facto, for the transaction of business for North Bay Village, because its charter required a council of five, three of whom constituted a quorum and were necessary to transact business.

Our view is that the last cited case does not control the case at bar. It is quite true that the election call, having been made by two councilmen, was not regular, but since the people got the notice and went to the polls and voted, it served the same purpose as if it had been regular. The people who approved the charter so far as the record shows, are satisfied. It is their business, and since they are not complaining, we think the election was legally held, the charter was approved and is in effect. Under our form of government sovereignty resides in the people, and since they are not complaining, why should any one else be heard to complain?

It is perfectly clear that the notice given served all the purposes of a legal one. Whether it was a directory or a mandatory prerequisite to a legal election, we do not have to decide. The rule seems approved on good authority that whether mandatory or directory, informalities or irregularities which do not affect the result of an election, will not render it invalid. This is all the more true as to the expression of the popular will when that is satisfied. McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, 2nd Ed. Revised Vol. 2, page 21.

The decree appealed from is therefore reversed.

SEBRING, C.J., and ROBERTS, J., and FUTCH, Associate Justice, concur.