Court Opinion

ID: 9561943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:19:14.077132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:39.928838
License: Public Domain

Brailsford, Justice
(concurring).
For the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Lewis, I agree that paragraph 4 of the amended answer was properly stricken by the lower court.
I have grave doubt as to the reasonableness of the classification on which Section 47-407, Code of Laws 1952, as amended, is based. However, I concur in the result as to paragraph 5 of the amended answer because the exception charging error in striking this paragraph fails to comply with rule 4, section 6 of the Rules of this Court in two particulars.
“* * * the error being that (a) Section 47-407 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1952, as amended, is unconstitutional because it is special legislation and (b) His Honor should not have ruled upon the constitutionality of the Section until after hearing the case on its merits.”
The exception contains two distinct propositions of law, and proposition (a) is not a complete assignment of error, in that it fails to point out wherein the statute falls within the *247category of constitutionally prohibited special legislation. It fails to challenge the reasonableness of the classification, which is the basis of the claimed unconstitutionality of the statute. Therefore, the constitutional point which is argued in the brief is not properly raised by the exception.