Rodney G. Bryson, Assess.
Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.
Rouse, Rate Adams for appellee.
VIEWPOINT ASSOCIATED WITH COURT BY ASSESS RATLIFF
Their appellant, J.M. Crowe, got the master of 5/20 (1/4) of stock associated with the Barrington Woods Realty Company, a corporation, hereinafter called the realty company. On March 22, 1922, the realty organization borrowed of appellee, The Covington count on and Banking providers, hereinafter known as bank, the sum $13,000 evidenced by thirteen $1,000 records payable on or before three years after go out, and guaranteed same by an initial financial throughout the homes associated with the realty providers. Prior to the loan was consummated, aside from the mortgage regarding the property, the stockholders from the realty organization, such as appellant, performed and delivered to the bank the following authorship:
«This Agreement Witnesseth:
«That, while, The Barrington Woods Realty providers, a company within the statutes of the condition of Kentucky, is actually desirous of getting from The Covington economy financial and rely on team, of Covington, Kentucky, a loan in the sum of $13,000.00, mentioned loan as secured by home financing regarding the homes of said Realty organization in Kenton region, Kentucky, and
«while, the said Covington Savings Bank and believe providers is actually happy to generate stated financing, provided every one of the stockholders of said Realty Company consent in writing on performance of financial securing mentioned financing, and additional accept indemnify said discount Bank and Trust Company against any reduction, cost or expenditure by need for the generating of said loan;
«Now, consequently, in consideration from the generating of said mortgage by mentioned benefit lender and Trust business to stated Realty Company, the undersigned, getting all the stockholders of said Realty Company, do hereby consent on delivery of said home loan and further accept to keep the said The Covington Savings financial and confidence Company safe and harmless from any loss, cost or costs that’ll arise by reasons from the approving of said loan, said assurance staying in amount to the holdings associated with a few stockholders in said Realty providers, the following:
After notes developed on March 22, 1925, they certainly were perhaps not paid or renewed and evidently absolutely nothing is finished regarding thing until on or around March 25, 1929, of which opportunity, without having any participation or motion on the part of appellant, another stockholders of the realty business as well as the lender generated a settlement in regard to the notes accomplished in 1922 also matters. The consequence of the payment had been that the realty team executed into lender ten $1,000 newer records because of and payable three-years from date, or March 25, 1932, and cancelled or noted settled the old notes, and the mortgage that was provided by the realty company to protect the outdated notes representing the 1922 $13,000 mortgage was released by the lender in margin in the home loan guide in which it actually was taped in the workplace from the Kenton state court clerk, and realty team performed into the bank a brand new financial on their residential property to protect the repayment from the $10,000 newer notes performed March 25, 1929, which mortgage ended up being duly recorded in the region judge clerk’s office.
As soon as the ten $1,000 records performed on March 25, 1929, developed on March 25, 1932, no work was developed by lender to gather the records by foreclosure legal proceeding regarding the mortgage or elsewhere and apparently nothing was actually finished about the point until 1938 whenever bank prosecuted the realty team to get the $10,000 financing made in March, 1929, and also to foreclose the home loan performed of the realty team to protect the fees of the same. View had been made in support of the bank and also the mortgaged house ordered marketed in order to meet the judgment, interest and value, etc., that has been completed, but at that moment the property associated with realty team had been insufficient to fulfill the wisdom together with lender noticed just a small section of the personal debt, making an equilibrium of $8,900 delinquent. In 1940 the bank produced this step against the appellant claiming your $10,000 mortgage produced by it on the realty team in 1929 was just a renewal or expansion associated with original $13,000 mortgage made in 1922 and wanted to recoup personal loan Washington of appellant 5/20 or 1/4 associated with $8,900, or $2,225, shortage which had been appellant’s proportionate express associated with original $13,000 financing manufactured in 1922 under the publishing signed by appellant in 1922 in connection with the initial mortgage.