Rodney G. Bryson, Judge.
Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.
Rouse, Price Adams for appellee.
THOUGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COURT BY ASSESS RATLIFF
The appellant, J.M. Crowe, was the owner of 5/20 (1/4) from the inventory associated with the Barrington forest Realty Company, a firm, hereinafter known as realty company. On March 22, 1922, the realty organization borrowed of appellee, The Covington believe and financial providers, hereinafter known as financial, the sum of $13,000 evidenced by thirteen $1,000 records payable on or before 3 years after date, and secured same by an initial financial throughout the land on the realty team. Before the mortgage was actually consummated, together with the home loan regarding the land, the stockholders of this realty team, such as appellant, executed and brought to the lender here authorship:
“This Agreement Witnesseth:
“That, while, The Barrington forest Realty team, an organization beneath the statutes on the condition of Kentucky, try desirous of acquiring from Covington cost savings Bank and believe team, of Covington, Kentucky, a loan into the amount of $13,000.00, said financing is guaranteed by a mortgage from the land of said Realty team in Kenton region, Kentucky, and
“while, the stated Covington cost savings Bank and depend on team is actually happy to create said loan, supplied all of the stockholders of said Realty team agree on paper to your performance of mortgage securing mentioned loan, and additional say yes to indemnify mentioned economy lender and rely on organization against any reduction, price or cost by reasons from the generating of said loan;
“Now, for that reason, in factor for the creating of said loan by stated cost savings Bank and depend on business to mentioned Realty Company, the undersigned, becoming all the stockholders of said Realty providers, would hereby consent with the delivery of said mortgage and additional accept to secure the stated The Covington economy Bank and depend on organization as well as ordinary from any loss, expense or expenditure that could arise by factor associated with granting of said loan, mentioned warranty in amount on the holdings with the a number of stockholders in said Realty business, as follows:
If the notes matured on March 22, 1925, these were not paid or revived and obviously nothing is finished regarding thing until on or just around March 25, 1929, where opportunity, without the involvement or activity for appellant, another stockholders of realty organization while the lender generated funds in regard to the records performed in 1922 and other things. The consequence of the payment ended up being that realty organization accomplished into bank ten $1,000 latest records due and payable 36 months from go out, or March 25, https://rapidloan.net/installment-loans-wv/ 1932, and cancelled or noted settled the old notes, therefore the mortgage which was provided by the realty team to lock in the outdated records representing the 1922 $13,000 loan premiered from the lender from inside the margin on the financial book in which it absolutely was tape-recorded in the workplace with the Kenton county court clerk, additionally the realty organization executed toward bank a unique financial on the property to protect the fees in the $10,000 brand new notes accomplished March 25, 1929, which home loan was actually properly tape-recorded inside state courtroom clerk’s office.
Whenever the ten $1,000 records performed on March 25, 1929, matured on March 25, 1932, no effort was made because of the lender to get the notes by foreclosure process in the financial or otherwise and it seems that nothing ended up being complete in regards to the material until 1938 when the financial charged the realty providers to gather the $10,000 loan built in March, 1929, and also to foreclose the mortgage performed from the realty organization to protected the installment of the identical. View had been made and only the lender and also the mortgaged property bought offered to satisfy the wisdom, interest and cost, etc., that has been finished, but during that time the assets from the realty company are insufficient to satisfy the judgment plus the lender noticed merely a small element of their 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.