Case Name: Mary B. HENDRIX, Respondent v. EASTERN DISTRIBUTION, INC., Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1995-11-06
Citations: 320 S.C. 218
Docket Number: 24342
Parties: Mary B. HENDRIX, Respondent v. EASTERN DISTRIBUTION, INC., Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 320
Pages: 218–219

Head Matter:
24342
Mary B. HENDRIX, Respondent v. EASTERN DISTRIBUTION, INC., Petitioner.
(464 S.E. (2d) 112)
Supreme Court
Henry Hammer, Howard Hammer and Lowell E. Bernstein, Hammer and Hammer, Columbia; and Scott Elliott, Columbia, for petitioner.
Leonard J. Spooner, Greenville, for respondent.
Heard Oct. 17, 1995.
Decided Nov. 6, 1995;
Reh. Den. Dec. 8, 1995.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Ap peals' opinion in Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution, Inc., 316 S.C. 34, 446 S.E. (2d) 440 (Ct. App. 1994). We affirm in result.
Hendrix instituted a breach of contract action against her former employer, Eastern Distribution, Inc. The jury returned a verdict for Hendrix. Eastern appealed, claiming the trial court should have granted its motion for a directed verdict. The Court of Appeals found this issue procedurally barred from review and, accordingly, affirmed the judgment in Hendrix' favor. The Court of Appeals nonetheless went on to address the merits of the issue.
Since the issue concerning Eastern's motion for a directed verdict was not preserved for review, it should not have been addressed. Smith v. Phillips, 318 S.C. 453, 458 S.E. (2d) 427 (1995) (Davis Adv. Sh. No. 13 at 18); Connolly v. People's Life Insurance Co., 299 S.C. 348, 384 S.E. (2d) 738 (1989). Accordingly, we affirm in result only. We vacate the Court of Appeals' opinion to the extent it addressed an issue which was not preserved.
Affirmed in result.