Thoughts
Rodney G. Bryson, Judge.
Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.
Rouse, Rates Adams for appellee.
VIEW FROM THE COURT BY JUDGE RATLIFF
The appellant, J.M. Crowe, is the owner of 5/20 (1/4) of this stock with the Barrington Woods Realty organization, an enterprise, hereinafter called the realty providers. On March 22, 1922, the realty business borrowed of appellee, The Covington believe and financial team, hereinafter called the lender, the sum of the $13,000 confirmed by thirteen $1,000 records payable on or before 3 years after day, and secured exact same by an initial home loan on the property associated with the realty organization. Before the loan got consummated, aside from the home loan throughout the home, the stockholders from the realty company, including appellant, performed and brought to the lender the following crafting:
“This Contract Witnesseth:
“That, while, The Barrington forests Realty team, an organization according to the regulations regarding the county of Kentucky, are desirous of getting from The Covington cost savings financial and believe providers, of Covington, Kentucky, financing during the amount of $13,000.00, mentioned financing to get protected by a home loan throughout the residential property of said Realty team in Kenton region, Kentucky, and
“while, the said Covington benefit lender and count on providers try prepared to create said mortgage, given the stockholders of said Realty team consent written down towards the delivery of financial securing mentioned financing, and further accept indemnify said benefit lender and count on Company against any loss, cost or expenses by need for the making of said financing;
“today, for that reason, in factor for the creating of said mortgage by mentioned cost savings Bank and depend on business to mentioned Realty business, the undersigned, becoming every stockholders of said Realty organization, do hereby consent to the delivery of said home loan and additional accept to secure the stated The Covington cost savings financial and confidence business safe and benign from any control, expense or expenditure which will occur by reasons in the giving of said loan, stated promise in proportion to your holdings associated with a number of stockholders in said Realty organization, below:
If the records developed on March 22, 1925, these people were not compensated or revived and apparently nothing ended up being accomplished regarding matter until on or around March 25, 1929, where energy, without having any involvement or activity for appellant, one other stockholders with the realty organization and bank produced money in regards to the records performed in 1922 and various other matters. Caused by the settlement was the realty team executed to your bank ten $1,000 brand-new records because of and payable 36 months from date, or March 25, 1932, and cancelled or designated compensated the old records, plus the financial which was written by the realty business to protected the old notes symbolizing the 1922 $13,000 financing premiered from the lender into the margin in the home loan book in which it had been tape-recorded in the workplace with the Kenton state courtroom clerk, as well as the realty providers executed on lender an innovative new financial on its land to lock in the MS personal loans payment regarding the $10,000 latest notes executed March 25, 1929, which home loan ended up being properly taped inside county legal clerk’s office.
As soon as the ten $1,000 records performed on March 25, 1929, matured on March 25, 1932, no energy was developed by the financial to gather the notes by property foreclosure procedures regarding the mortgage or else and it seems that nothing is accomplished concerning situation until 1938 whenever lender charged the realty providers to get the $10,000 financing manufactured in March, 1929, and also to foreclose the home loan executed by the realty organization to lock in the payment of the same. Wisdom had been rendered in favor of the financial institution and the mortgaged house purchased sold to fulfill the view, interest and cost, etc., which was finished, but during those times the property from the realty company are insufficient to meet the judgment and also the bank realized just a tiny part of its loans, leaving an equilibrium of $8,900 unpaid. 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.