Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-151 - Wright v. Hiester Construction Co.

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Kenneth E. Wright and Bonnie L. Wright, Appellants/Respondents,

v.

Hiester Construction Co., Inc, Respondent/Appellant,

and

Dilia And Odin Painting Co., Respondent.


Appeal From Beaufort County
 Jackson V. Gregory, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-151
Submitted March 3, 2008 – Filed March 10, 2008   


AFFIRMED


Bradford N. Martin and Laura W.H. Teer, both of Greenville, for Appellant-Respondent.

Stephen L. Brown, Duke R. Highfield, and Russell G. Hines, all of Charleston, for Respondent.

J.J. Anderson and Eric M. Johnsen, both of Charleston, for Respondent-Appellant.

PER CURIAM:  Kenneth E. Wright and Bonnie L. Wright appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion for judgment not withstanding the verdict and, in the alternative, motion for new trial. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Rule 210(h), SCACR (“[T]he appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear in the record on appeal.”); Rule 59(b), SCRCP (“The motion for a new trial shall be made promptly after the jury is discharged, or in the discretion of the court not later than 10 days thereafter.”); Helms Realty, Inc. v. Gibson-Wall Co., 363 S.C. 334, 339-40, 611 S.E.2d 485, 487-88 (2005) (finding on appeal the appellant has the burden of presenting a sufficient record to allow review); Harkins v. Greenville County, 340 S.C. 606, 616 533 S.E.2d 886, 891 (2000) (affirming the trial court on an issue because the appellant had not met its burden of presenting an adequate record on appeal); S.C. State Highway Dep’t v. Meredith, 241 S.C. 306, 311 128 S.E.2d 179, 181 (1962) (“The transcript of record is the source of our information as to what occurred in the trial of the case below; its very object is to inform the Court authoritatively of the legal questions contested below and of the facts pertaining thereto.”).

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, SHORT, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.