THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Richard Morris,        Appellant,

v.

Jerri W. King,        Respondent.

Appeal From Horry County
John L. Breeden, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2003-UP-432 
Submitted June 9, 2003 – Filed June 24, 2003

AFFIRMED

William Isaac Diggs, of Myrtle Beach,  for Appellant.

Linda Weeks Gangi, of Conway,  for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Richard Morris appeals a jury verdict for Jerri W. King, alleging the trial court erred in refusing his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial.  We affirm. [1]

We affirm the trial court denying Morris’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  1) regarding the trial court’s denial of Morris’s judgment notwithstanding the verdict:  Rule 50(a) & (b), SCRCP (providing that when a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is granted, the verdict of the jury is set aside and judgment is entered in accordance with the party’s directed verdict motion); Smith v. Ridgeway Chem., Inc., 302 S.C. 303, 305-06, 395 S.E.2d 742, 743-44 (Ct. App. 1990) (holding that a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is available to a party suffering an adverse jury verdict only when the same issues were first presented to the trial court in a motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence); Johnson v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 317 S.C. 415, 420, 453 S.E.2d 908, 911 (Ct. App. 1995) (holding that a judgment notwithstanding the verdict may not be granted if the moving party fails to make a directed verdict motion at the close of all the evidence); accord Hendrix v. Eastern Distrib., Inc., 316 S.C. 34, 37, 446 S.E.2d 440, 442 (Ct. App. 1994), aff’d in part and vacated in part, 320 S.C. 218, 464 S.E.2d 112 (1995); Smith, 302 S.C. at 305-06, 395 S.E.2d at 743-44 (“Inasmuch as no motion was made for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the trial, no motion for relief as a matter of law is available after the jury verdict.”); Mize v. Blue Ridge Ry. Co., 219 S.C. 119, 129-30, 64 S.E.2d 253, 258 (1951) (stating that an issue not raised by the appellant at trial is not preserved for appeal even though the issue was discussed by the trial court); 2) regarding the trial court’s denial of Morris’s motion for a new trial: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (holding that a specific argument that was neither raised to nor ruled upon by the trial court is not properly preserved for consideration on appeal); accord Creech v. S.C. Wildlife & Marine Res. Dep’t, 328 S.C. 24, 33-34, 491 S.E.2d 571, 576 (1997); Taylor v. Medenica, 324 S.C. 200, 216, 479 S.E.2d 35, 43 (1996); Merritt v. Grant, 285 S.C. 150, 154, 328 S.E.2d 346, 349 (Ct. App. 1985); McEntire v. Mooreguard Exterminating Servs., 353 S.C. 629, 632, 578 S.E.2d 746, 747 (Ct. App. 2003) (holding that a directed verdict motion is a prerequisite to a motion for a new trial on the ground the verdict is against the evidence) (citing Peay v. Ross, 292 S.C. 535, 536, 357 S.E.2d 482, 483 (Ct. App. 1987)); accord Marsh v. S.C. Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 298 S.C. 420, 423, 380 S.E.2d 867, 869 (Ct. App. 1989).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY and HOWARD, JJ., and BEATTY, A.J., concur.