Viewpoint
Rodney G. Bryson, Judge.
Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.
Rouse, Costs Adams personal loans Iowa for appellee.
VIEWPOINT FROM THE COURT BY JUDGE RATLIFF
Really appellant, J.M. Crowe, was the owner of 5/20 (1/4) on the stock of Barrington Woods Realty Company, a corporation, hereinafter known as realty company. On March 22, 1922, the realty organization lent of appellee, The Covington depend on and Banking organization, hereinafter known as lender, the sum of $13,000 evidenced by thirteen $1,000 records payable on or before 36 months after day, and secured exact same by a primary mortgage from the house for the realty company. Before the financing ended up being consummated, besides the financial on house, the stockholders of realty company, like appellant, performed and delivered to the bank these crafting:
“This Contract Witnesseth:
“That, Whereas, The Barrington forest Realty team, an enterprise in regulations from the condition of Kentucky, try desirous of getting from The Covington benefit Bank and depend on team, of Covington, Kentucky, that loan in sum of $13,000.00, mentioned financing becoming guaranteed by a home loan on property of said Realty business in Kenton district, Kentucky, and
“Whereas, the said Covington economy Bank and depend on providers was willing to making mentioned mortgage, supplied all stockholders of said Realty Company consent written down towards performance of financial securing said mortgage, and further consent to indemnify stated benefit financial and Trust organization against any control, expenses or expense by need associated with generating of said mortgage;
“Now, Therefore, in consideration associated with creating of said loan by stated discount Bank and confidence providers to said Realty team, the undersigned, getting the stockholders of said Realty Company, perform hereby consent to your execution of said home loan and further say yes to keep the said The Covington Savings financial and believe organization safe and benign from any reduction, expenses or expenses which will happen by need for the granting of said financing, mentioned promise in percentage to your holdings on the a number of stockholders in said Realty business, below:
Once the records developed on March 22, 1925, these were perhaps not settled or renewed and seemingly absolutely nothing was completed concerning the point until on or just around March 25, 1929, of which opportunity, without the participation or action for appellant, the other stockholders on the realty providers and also the lender made money in regards to the notes performed in 1922 along with other issues. Caused by the payment ended up being the realty providers executed into the bank ten $1,000 newer notes due and payable three years from time, or March 25, 1932, and terminated or noted settled the outdated notes, while the home loan that was distributed by the realty providers to protected the outdated records symbolizing the 1922 $13,000 loan was released because of the financial from inside the margin regarding the financial guide where it absolutely was recorded at work associated with Kenton district court clerk, plus the realty providers performed on lender a new mortgage on the property to secure the repayment on the $10,000 latest records accomplished March 25, 1929, which financial got duly taped within the district courtroom clerk’s workplace.
Whenever the ten $1,000 notes accomplished on March 25, 1929, developed on March 25, 1932, no energy was made from the financial to collect the records by foreclosure proceedings about mortgage or otherwise and apparently little was accomplished concerning the situation until 1938 as soon as the financial prosecuted the realty team to gather the $10,000 financing built in March, 1929, and also to foreclose the mortgage accomplished because of the realty company to protect the repayment of the same. Wisdom ended up being made in support of the financial institution and mortgaged land bought marketed in order to meet the wisdom, interest and value, etc., that was complete, but during that time the assets associated with the realty company comprise inadequate to fulfill the wisdom and the bank discovered just a tiny section of its debt, leaving a balance of $8,900 unpaid. In 1940 the financial institution delivered this course of action contrary to the appellant saying that $10,000 loan made by they to your realty providers in 1929 was just a renewal or extension associated with the original $13,000 mortgage manufactured in 1922 and sought to recoup of appellant 5/20 or 1/4 on the $8,900, or $2,225, deficit which had been appellant’s proportionate share of this initial $13,000 loan built in 1922 according to the crafting finalized by appellant in 1922 associated with the first mortgage.
