Court Opinion

ID: 9584379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:47:30.050035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:39.880333
License: Public Domain

Taylor, Justice
(dissenting).
I regret that I am unable to agree with the Majority Opinion and must, therefore, dissent.
*171Appellant contends that the Court erred in not limiting its scope of review and that the Order of the Board of Bank Control should have been affirmed.
Legislation resulting in enactment of the Statute involved in this appeal was long considered and energetically contested. It is significant that after long consideration the Legislature enacted into law Section 8-794.163, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1952, 1959 Cumulative Supplement, which is worded as follows:
“The Court shall have jurisdiction to review the facts and the law and to affirm, modify or set aside the order or decision of the Board and restrain the enforcement thereof.”
To my mind the use of this broad language is most significant, especially so in view of the fact that this type of business has always proven most difficult to control. The Legislature, in my opinion, was throwing the protection of the Courts about those who might feel aggrieved. It certainly should not be rendered meaningless by Court Decree.
The Majority Opinion holds that there was no evidence to show that a “formula” had been used as a guide by the Board as a basis for its findings or, in fact, that such formula existed at all. A reference to the Order of the Board itself shows that the word “formula” was used, and I think it reasonable to say that if it was of no consequence and had it not been considered it would not have been so stated in the Order. If the census population was used, it is evident that it was improperly applied or it was done so with respect to the City of Spartanburg only, when it was not so intended as the Order itself states:
“* * * It is conceded that all of the County population patronize the business establishments of the City of Spartanburg. * * *”
From the record it appears there are 504 licensees under this Act in the State. Based on the population of the State, every licensee theoretically serves approximately 4,000 persons. Using this as a formula, the Board of Bank Control *172found that 29 licensees within the City of Spartanburg would serve only 1,269 persons each under the 1950 census. If this formula is applied to the City according to its 1950 population (36,795), only 9 licenses should have been issued in the City. If the 1958 estimate of the population (44,000) was considered, only 11 licenses should have been issued. Twenty-nine licenses have been issued within the City. The 29th, being issued on January 14, 1959, was obviously issued under the formula based upon the population of the County and not the City alone. Since 1950, Spartanburg has undergone tremendous growth while the City limits have been expanded very little. A great number of business and manufacturing establishments lie immediately without the limits of the City proper and as stated by the Board in its findings, are served by the City of Spartanburg along with other portions of the County.
It is evident that the formula was relied upon and misapplied and was erroneous in respect to the application of respondents who are lifelong, reputable citizens of Spartan-burg County and that the act of the Board in respect thereto became unreasonable and arbitrary.
The power of the Courts on review of an administrative determination is usually limited to affirming or setting aside the determination, and it is usually held that they have no power to amend or modify the determination. However, the statutes sometimes vest the court with such power, 42 Am. Jur. 688, Sec. 246, which is precisely the case at hand. The Legislature in clear and unambiguous terms vested the Courts with the power to affirm, modify or set aside an Order of the Board. Being charged with this, the Courts cannot with good conscience say that they are charged only with the duty of reviewing the facts in order to ascertain whether there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the Board. There was a clear misapplication of the basic consideration applied in determining by the Board whether such license should be granted and the duty of correcting such error lay squarely with the Court.
*173The foregoing in nowise is repugnant to the holdings of this Court in Jacoby v. South Carolina State Board of Naturopathic Examiners, 219 S. C. 66, 64 S. E. (2d) 138; Lee v. Berry, 219 S. C. 346, 65 S. E. (2d) 257; and Lee v. DeBerry, 219 S. C. 382, 65 S. E. (2d) 775. I would, therefore, affirm the Order appealed from.