Universal C.I.T Credit Corp. v. Ingel

Facts

The defendant, Ingel (the “defendant”), excepted to a finding of a directed verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Universal C.I.T Credit Corp., (the “plaintiff”) in the amount of $1,630.12. The defendant also excepted to the exclusion of certain evidence. Allied Aluminum Associates conducted property improvements for the defendant. The work done for the defendant was financed with a promissory note payable over 60 monthly installments. The plaintiff is the assignee of the promissory note. The defendant was unhappy with the work performed by Allied Aluminum and refused to pay on the note. The defendant contended that the note was nonnegotiable; therefore, any defense which could be raised by Allied could also be raised against the plaintiff. The defendant argued that the note was nonnegotiable because it contained a promise other than the promise to pay, failed to state a sum certain, and had been materially altered. The defense argued that the trial court incorrectly excluded the testimony of Charles D. Fahey and Dora Ingel. Fahey was expected to testify to a credit report that was evidence of Allied improper business and advertising practices. Dora Ingel’s testimony regarded the admission of a letter that purported to show evidence of Allied’s fraud or breach of warranty.