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Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-151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.