View

Rodney G. Bryson, Judge.

Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.

Rouse, Cost Adams for appellee.

THOUGHTS IN THE COURT BY ASSESS RATLIFF

The appellant, J.M. Crowe, was actually the master of 5/20 (1/4) associated with the stock regarding the Barrington Woods Realty providers, an enterprise, hereinafter called the realty providers. On March 22, 1922, the realty company borrowed of appellee, The Covington count on and financial providers, hereinafter known as bank, the sum of $13,000 confirmed by thirteen $1,000 records payable on or before 36 months after date, and secured exact same by a first mortgage about land in the realty organization. Ahead of the financing got consummated, as well as the mortgage regarding home, the stockholders regarding the realty company, including appellant, performed and sent to the financial institution the subsequent publishing:

“This Agreement Witnesseth:

“That, Whereas, The Barrington forest Realty team, a company under the legislation for the State of Kentucky, was desirous of acquiring through the Covington cost savings financial and rely on business, of Covington, Kentucky, a loan into the amount of $13,000.00, said mortgage is guaranteed by home financing from the homes of said Realty team in Kenton district, Kentucky, and

“while, the stated Covington economy lender and rely on business is happy to create said mortgage, supplied all the stockholders of said Realty organization consent on paper to your execution of financial securing stated financing, and additional accept indemnify stated discount lender and Trust organization against any reduction, expense or cost by need associated with the generating of said mortgage;

“Now, for that reason, in consideration with the making of said financing by stated benefit financial and Trust business to mentioned Realty team, the undersigned, being all of the stockholders of said Realty organization, do hereby consent towards the execution of said mortgage and additional accept secure the stated The Covington economy Bank and rely on business as well as benign from any control, cost or costs that may develop by factor for the granting of said mortgage, mentioned guarantee staying in proportion towards holdings associated with the a number of stockholders in said Realty business, the following:

Once the notes matured on March 22, 1925, these people were not compensated or revived and seemingly nothing got accomplished about the thing until on or about March 25, 1929, where time, without any participation or action for appellant, the other stockholders from the realty business in addition to lender produced a settlement in regard to the records executed in 1922 along with other things. The consequence of the settlement was the realty organization executed towards the lender ten $1,000 newer records due and payable three-years from time, or March 25, 1932, and cancelled or designated settled the existing notes, plus the mortgage which was provided by the realty business to protect the outdated notes representing the 1922 $13,000 financing was released by the bank when you look at the margin with the financial book where it was recorded at the office with the Kenton region legal clerk, together with realty organization executed towards bank a unique financial on its residential property to lock in the fees of $10,000 brand new notes accomplished March 25, 1929, which home loan got duly tape-recorded within the county judge clerk’s workplace.

Whenever the ten $1,000 records executed on March 25, 1929, matured on March 25, 1932, no work was developed because of the lender to gather the records by foreclosure process throughout the home loan or else and seemingly absolutely nothing was actually West Virginia credit union personal loan done concerning the issue until 1938 once the lender sued the realty business to collect the $10,000 mortgage manufactured in March, 1929, also to foreclose the financial executed by realty business to lock in the fees of the identical. Judgment is made in support of the financial institution while the mortgaged belongings purchased sold to satisfy the judgment, interest and cost, etc., which was complete, but during those times the property for the realty business were insufficient to meet the wisdom in addition to bank realized best limited element of the loans, 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.