Rodney G. Bryson, Assess.
Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.
Rouse, Price Adams for appellee.
VIEW FOR THE COURT BY ASSESS RATLIFF
The appellant, J.M. Crowe, ended up being the master of 5/20 (1/4) on the inventory with the Barrington forests Realty Company, a firm, hereinafter known as realty company. On March 22, 1922, the realty team lent of appellee, The Covington rely on and Banking team, hereinafter known as financial, the sum of the $13,000 confirmed by thirteen $1,000 records payable on or before 3 years after time, and guaranteed exact same by a first home loan regarding the homes of this realty providers. Ahead of the financing is consummated, as well as the mortgage in the house, the stockholders on the realty organization, like appellant, accomplished and brought to the financial institution the subsequent writing:
“This Contract Witnesseth:
“That, while, The Barrington forest Realty providers, an enterprise according to the regulations regarding the State of Kentucky, try desirous of getting through the Covington benefit financial and confidence business, of Covington, Kentucky, financing inside the sum of $13,000.00, said financing are secured by a mortgage regarding the house of said Realty providers in Kenton County, Kentucky, and
“while, the stated Covington discount lender and count on providers is happy to making mentioned mortgage, offered every one of the stockholders of said Realty business consent written down into delivery of home loan securing mentioned loan, and additional accept indemnify stated economy lender and confidence business against any reduction, price or expenditure by cause in the generating of said financing;
“Now, thus, in consideration associated with creating of said financing by stated economy financial and count on Company to mentioned Realty organization, the undersigned, being all of the stockholders of said Realty organization, manage hereby consent on execution of said financial and additional consent to contain the said The Covington cost savings lender and count on Company safe and safe from any loss, cost or expenses that will arise by explanation of giving of said financing, said warranty in amount with the holdings of this a number of stockholders in said Realty providers, as follows:
Once the records developed on March 22, 1925, these people were maybe not compensated or renewed and it seems that absolutely nothing was done in regards to the procedure until on or about March 25, 1929, from which opportunity, without having any participation or actions on the part of appellant, the other stockholders for the realty company as well as the bank generated a settlement regarding the records accomplished in 1922 also things. The consequence of the payment is the realty business performed for the lender ten $1,000 brand-new notes because of and payable 3 years from day, or March 25, 1932, and cancelled or marked compensated the existing notes, additionally the mortgage that has been written by the realty company to secure the outdated records representing the 1922 $13,000 loan was released from the bank into the margin of this mortgage publication where it had been taped in the office associated with the Kenton district courtroom clerk, in addition to realty team performed toward financial an innovative new financial on the property to protected the repayment from the $10,000 brand-new records accomplished March 25, 1929 New Mexico personal loans, which financial had been properly recorded within the county judge clerk’s office.
As soon as the ten $1,000 notes executed on March 25, 1929, developed on March 25, 1932, no effort was developed of the bank to gather the notes by foreclosure process from the financial or otherwise and evidently little ended up being accomplished in regards to the situation until 1938 as soon as the lender prosecuted the realty team to gather the $10,000 mortgage built in March, 1929, and also to foreclose the mortgage accomplished by the realty business to protected the installment of the identical. Wisdom was actually made and only the bank and also the mortgaged house purchased sold to satisfy the view, interest and cost, etc., that was complete, but in those days the possessions from the realty business comprise insufficient to fulfill the view and also the financial discovered only limited part of their debt, making 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.