Rodney G. Bryson, Assess.
Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.
Rouse, Rate Adams for appellee.
VIEW OF COURT BY ASSESS RATLIFF
The appellant, J.M. Crowe, was who owns 5/20 (1/4) on the stock on the Barrington forests Realty providers, a firm, hereinafter known as realty company. On March 22, 1922, the realty business borrowed of appellee, The Covington confidence and Banking team, hereinafter called the financial, the sum $13,000 confirmed by thirteen $1,000 records payable on or before three-years after big date, and guaranteed exact same by a first mortgage about property on the realty organization. Prior to the financing was actually consummated, in addition to the mortgage in the land, the stockholders associated with the realty organization, like appellant, accomplished and brought to the financial institution here crafting:
“This Arrangement Witnesseth:
“That, Whereas, The Barrington forest Realty team, a business according to the guidelines from the condition of Kentucky, is desirous of obtaining from Covington economy Bank and rely on providers, of Covington, Kentucky, that loan in sum of $13,000.00, mentioned mortgage getting secured by a mortgage regarding house of said Realty team in Kenton region, Kentucky, and
“while, the stated Covington economy lender and Trust team try happy to render said mortgage, supplied all stockholders of said Realty business agree in writing for the execution of home loan securing said financing, and further agree to indemnify mentioned economy financial and rely on Company against any loss, cost or cost by need associated with the generating of said financing;
“today, for that reason, in consideration with the generating of said mortgage by stated cost savings lender and Trust team to said Realty Company, the undersigned, being all the stockholders of said Realty Company, perform hereby consent on performance of said home loan and additional say yes to contain the said The Covington cost savings Bank and believe team safe and harmless from any control, cost or expense that will occur by explanation from the giving of said financing, mentioned assurance in percentage on holdings regarding the a number of stockholders in said Realty organization, below:
Once the notes developed on March 22, 1925, they certainly were maybe not settled or renewed and it seems that absolutely nothing was accomplished in regards to the topic until on or just around March 25, 1929, at which opportunity, with no engagement or action for appellant, additional stockholders on the realty organization together with financial produced a settlement in regard to the notes performed in 1922 alongside things. The consequence of the settlement had been that the realty company accomplished for the bank ten $1,000 latest records because of and payable 36 months from big date, or March 25, 1932, and terminated or designated compensated the old notes, while the mortgage that was provided by the realty business to protected the existing records symbolizing the 1922 $13,000 mortgage premiered by the lender in the margin of this home loan publication in which it had been recorded at work of Kenton region legal clerk, together with realty company executed on bank a mortgage on the residential property to secure the repayment regarding the $10,000 brand new notes executed March 25, 1929, which mortgage was actually duly tape-recorded from inside the region judge clerk’s office.
After ten $1,000 notes performed on March 25, 1929, developed on March 25, 1932, no energy was made because of the financial to collect the records by foreclosure procedures in the mortgage or elsewhere and it seems that absolutely nothing ended up being https://yourloansllc.com/personal-loans-nd/ complete in regards to the question until 1938 once the lender prosecuted the realty organization to get the $10,000 loan produced in March, 1929, and to foreclose the home loan performed from the realty company to secure the cost of the same. View got rendered and only the financial institution plus the mortgaged homes bought sold to fulfill the wisdom, interest and value, etc., which had been completed, but in those days the property regarding the realty organization comprise insufficient to fulfill the view and financial understood best a tiny element of their debt, leaving a balance 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.