Ricks v. Ficken

312 S.E.2d 715, 280 S.C. 294, 1984 S.C. LEXIS 224
CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedFebruary 7, 1984
Docket22040
StatusPublished

This text of 312 S.E.2d 715 (Ricks v. Ficken) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ricks v. Ficken, 312 S.E.2d 715, 280 S.C. 294, 1984 S.C. LEXIS 224 (S.C. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Harwell, Justice;

The trial court ordered specific performance of a contract between respondent T. A. Coats and appellant City of Myrtle Beach (City). We reverse.

In February of 1981, the City entered into a license agreement with respondent Coats to permit Coats to conduct bingo [295]*295games in the Myrtle Beach Convention Center. The City then notified Coats that it would not honor the agreement, and Coats commenced this action for specific performance of the contract.

The matter was referred to a Master in Equity, who recommended judgment in favor of Coats. The circuit judge concurred in the Master’s findings and ordered appellant to issue Coats a license to operate bingo pursuant to the contract. The judgment was stayed by this Court pending appeal.

Appellant asserts that the license agreement was entered into pursuant to unconstitutional special legislation. We agree.

Article XVII, § 7 of the South Carolina Constitution prohibits lotteries in this State. However, the Constitution does allow charitable organizations and State and County fairs to conduct bingo games. S. C. Code Ann. § 52-17-20(2) (1976), 1982 Cum. Supp., designates certain portions of Horry County and the Isle of Palms as county fairs. Appellant challenges the constitutionality of this special treatment of Horry County.

Article III, § 34(IX) of the Constitution prohibits special legislation where a general law can be made applicable. We recently held the portion of § 52-17-20(2) relating to the Isle of Palms and Horry County to be unconstitutional as special legislation and as a denial of equal protection of the law. Nevertheless, we held that subsection to be severable from the rest of the statute. Strom v. AMVETS, 311 S. E. (2d) 721 (S. C. 1984).

The contract between respondent and the City entered into pursuant to § 52-17-20(2) is therefore repugnant to public policy and void. Grant v. Butt, 198 S. C. 298,17 S. E. (2d) 689 (1941); Batchelor v. American Health Ins. Co., 234 S. C. 103, 107 S. E. (2d) 36 (1959).

It is not necessary to discuss appellant’s remaining assertions of error.

Reversed.

Lewis, C. J., and Littlejohn, Ness and Gregory, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Batchelor v. American Health Insurance
107 S.E.2d 36 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1959)
Strom v. Amvets
311 S.E.2d 721 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1984)
Grant v. Butt
17 S.E.2d 689 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
312 S.E.2d 715, 280 S.C. 294, 1984 S.C. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricks-v-ficken-scctapp-1984.