Viewpoint
Rodney G. Bryson, Assess.
Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.
Rouse, Costs Adams for appellee.
ADVICE ASSOCIATED WITH COURT BY ASSESS RATLIFF
The appellant, J.M. Crowe, ended up being who owns 5/20 (1/4) of the stock associated with Barrington Woods Realty business, an agency, hereinafter known as realty organization. On March 22, 1922, the realty organization lent of appellee, The Covington Trust and Banking business, hereinafter called the financial, the sum $13,000 confirmed by thirteen $1,000 records payable on or before 3 years after go out, and protected exact same by a primary financial from the land of this realty providers. Ahead of the loan was consummated, together with the home loan on home, the stockholders regarding the realty organization, like appellant, accomplished and brought to the bank here writing:
“This Arrangement Witnesseth:
“That, Whereas, The Barrington forests Realty organization, a company under the guidelines with the county of Kentucky, is desirous of acquiring from Covington Savings lender and rely on providers, of Covington, Kentucky, financing in amount of $13,000.00, stated loan to-be secured by a home loan on property of said Realty Company in Kenton region, Kentucky, and
“while, the stated Covington benefit lender and Trust team is actually happy https://rapidloan.net/installment-loans-wv/ to generate said financing, offered all the stockholders of said Realty business agree written down into delivery of mortgage securing said loan, and further accept indemnify mentioned discount financial and Trust organization against any loss, cost or costs by explanation of the generating of said financing;
“Now, Therefore, in consideration regarding the generating of said loan by mentioned economy Bank and depend on team to stated Realty providers, the undersigned, getting all of the stockholders of said Realty providers, carry out hereby consent on delivery of said home loan and additional consent to hold the stated The Covington economy lender and count on team as well as benign from any reduction, expenses or expenses that could arise by factor of granting of said mortgage, mentioned assurance staying in proportion for the holdings of the a number of stockholders in said Realty Company, below:
Whenever notes matured on March 22, 1925, these were not paid or renewed and obviously nothing was actually completed regarding thing until on or just around March 25, 1929, from which times, without any involvement or motion for appellant, additional stockholders regarding the realty organization and bank made a settlement in regard to the notes accomplished in 1922 alongside issues. Caused by the settlement is the realty organization executed toward financial ten $1,000 new records due and payable 36 months from big date, or March 25, 1932, and terminated or noted compensated the outdated notes, and the mortgage which had been provided by the realty company to secure the existing records representing the 1922 $13,000 loan was released by the bank inside the margin in the financial book where it actually was taped at work with the Kenton county legal clerk, plus the realty company executed on lender a mortgage on their property to protected the repayment associated with $10,000 newer notes accomplished March 25, 1929, which financial was actually properly tape-recorded into the district court clerk’s workplace.
When the ten $1,000 records executed on March 25, 1929, developed on March 25, 1932, no energy was created by financial to collect the notes by foreclosure proceedings on the financial or perhaps and apparently little was actually completed towards point until 1938 whenever the lender sued the realty business to collect the $10,000 loan manufactured in March, 1929, and also to foreclose the financial performed by the realty business to protect the payment of the same. Judgment is made in favor of the financial institution plus the mortgaged house purchased offered in order to meet the wisdom, interest and value, etc., which had been complete, but at that time the possessions of realty company comprise inadequate to satisfy the judgment as well as the lender realized only a tiny element of their debt, making an equilibrium of $8,900 outstanding. 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.