Thoughts
Rodney G. Bryson, Judge.
Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.
Rouse, Rates Adams for appellee.
ADVICE REGARDING THE COURT BY JUDGE RATLIFF
The appellant, J.M. Crowe, had been the master of 5/20 (1/4) from the inventory associated with Barrington Woods Realty providers, a company, hereinafter called the realty providers. On March 22, 1922, the realty company borrowed of appellee, The Covington believe and financial business, hereinafter called the lender, the sum $13,000 evidenced by thirteen $1,000 notes payable on or before three-years after time, and secured exact same by a first home loan from the property of realty business. Ahead of the financing was actually consummated, besides the financial regarding the residential property, the stockholders in the realty company, including appellant, accomplished and shipped to the bank this amazing authorship:
“This Agreement Witnesseth:
“That, Whereas, The Barrington forest Realty team, an organization within the statutes regarding the State of Kentucky, try desirous of acquiring from Covington benefit financial and count on providers, of Covington, Kentucky, that loan from inside the amount of $13,000.00, said loan become protected by home financing throughout the home of said Realty team in Kenton district, Kentucky, and
“Whereas, the said Covington Savings lender and confidence organization are ready to making stated financing, offered the stockholders of said Realty business consent in writing towards the delivery of mortgage securing said loan, and further agree to indemnify mentioned cost savings financial and Trust team against any loss, price or expenses by explanation in the making of said mortgage;
“today, consequently, in consideration associated with generating of said loan by stated benefit lender and Trust providers to stated Realty providers, the undersigned, are most of the stockholders of said Realty Company, would hereby consent to your performance of said installment loans Illinois home loan and additional consent to hold the said The Covington economy lender and Trust business as well as safe from any reduction, expenses or expenditure that’ll develop by factor regarding the granting of said mortgage, said promise being in percentage towards the holdings associated with a number of stockholders in said Realty Company, below:
If the notes developed on March 22, 1925, they certainly were perhaps not settled or revived and seemingly nothing ended up being done towards procedure until on or about March 25, 1929, where time, with no participation or actions on the part of appellant, the other stockholders of this realty organization additionally the financial made money in regards to the records executed in 1922 as well as other things. Caused by the settlement was actually that the realty organization accomplished into the financial ten $1,000 brand new records due and payable 3 years from date, or March 25, 1932, and terminated or marked compensated the outdated notes, while the mortgage that has been written by the realty team to secure the outdated notes representing the 1922 $13,000 loan premiered by lender within the margin from the mortgage publication in which it had been recorded at the office regarding the Kenton district legal clerk, therefore the realty organization accomplished to the lender a unique mortgage on its residential property to protected the installment of this $10,000 brand-new notes performed March 25, 1929, which home loan ended up being duly taped inside the district judge clerk’s office.
When the ten $1,000 records accomplished on March 25, 1929, matured on March 25, 1932, no work was made by financial to get the records by property foreclosure proceedings in the home loan or perhaps and evidently nothing is finished regarding procedure until 1938 after lender prosecuted the realty company to collect the $10,000 financing built in March, 1929, also to foreclose the mortgage performed of the realty providers to protected the fees of the same. View is made in favor of the bank additionally the mortgaged homes bought marketed to satisfy the view, interest and cost, etc., that was accomplished, but during those times the assets associated with the realty providers had been inadequate to meet the judgment and the bank discovered best a small section of the loans, leaving an equilibrium of $8,900 delinquent. In 1940 the bank brought this action against the appellant claiming that the $10,000 loan made by it to the realty company in 1929 was only a renewal or extension of the original $13,000 loan made in 1922 and sought to recover of appellant 5/20 or 1/4 of the $8,900, or $2,225, deficit which was appellant’s proportionate share of the original $13,000 loan made in 1922 under the writing signed by appellant in 1922 in connection with the original loan.
