Crowe v. Covington believe Banking Co. Appeal from Kenton routine Court; common-law and money Division.

View

Rodney G. Bryson, Assess.

Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.

Rouse, Rate Adams for appellee.

OPINION ASSOCIATED WITH COURT BY ASSESS RATLIFF

The appellant, J.M. Crowe, was the master of 5/20 (1/4) associated with the stock with the Barrington Woods Realty Company, a corporation, hereinafter called the realty company. On March 22, 1922, the realty organization lent of appellee, The Covington rely on and Banking business, hereinafter called the bank, the sum of the $13,000 evidenced by thirteen $1,000 records payable on or before 3 years after day, and guaranteed exact same by a primary financial throughout the property regarding the realty organization. Ahead of the financing was consummated, aside from the home loan from the belongings, the stockholders of this realty organization, such as appellant, performed and sent to the bank listed here crafting:

“This Contract Witnesseth:

“That, while, The Barrington forests Realty organization, an enterprise within the rules of the State of Kentucky, is actually desirous of getting through the Covington cost savings financial and confidence business, of Covington, Kentucky, that loan from inside the sum of $13,000.00, said mortgage is protected by home financing about home of said Realty providers in Kenton district, Kentucky, and

“while, the said Covington benefit Bank and depend on Company is willing to making stated financing, provided all the stockholders of said Realty providers concur on paper to the delivery of home loan securing said loan, and further accept to indemnify stated benefit lender and believe Company against any control, expenses or costs by cause from the generating of said mortgage;

“today, consequently, in consideration on the generating of said financing by said economy Bank and count on business to said Realty organization, the undersigned, getting all of the stockholders of said Realty providers, do hereby consent into performance of said financial and further accept to contain the said The Covington economy lender and count on Company safe and ordinary from any reduction, price or costs which could arise by reason with the granting of said loan, stated guarantee being in percentage into holdings regarding the a number of stockholders in said Realty providers, the following:

After notes developed on March 22, 1925, these people were not settled or renewed and apparently nothing is accomplished towards procedure until on or just around March 25, 1929, at which opportunity, without the involvement or activity on the part of appellant, additional stockholders of this realty providers and the lender made funds in regard to the notes performed in 1922 alongside things. Caused by the payment got your realty business accomplished for the financial ten $1,000 brand new notes because of and payable three-years from go out, or March 25, 1932, and cancelled or designated paid the outdated notes, and also the home loan which had been written by the realty team to protected the old notes representing the 1922 $13,000 financing was launched of the financial for the margin of this home loan book where it absolutely was recorded in the office with the Kenton district legal clerk, while the realty organization performed for the lender a fresh financial on their home to protected the installment of the $10,000 latest records accomplished March 25, 1929, which mortgage is properly taped within the region judge clerk’s workplace.

If the ten $1,000 records accomplished on March 25, 1929, developed on March 25, 1932, no efforts was created by financial to collect the records by foreclosure legal proceeding in the mortgage or otherwise and it seems that absolutely nothing was complete regarding the question until 1938 when the bank charged the realty organization to gather the $10,000 mortgage produced in March, 1929, and to foreclose the mortgage performed from the realty providers to secure the payment of the same. Wisdom was actually made and only the lender as well as the mortgaged belongings ordered ended up selling to meet the view, interest and value, etc., which had been done, but at that time the assets of realty company happened to be insufficient to fulfill the judgment as well as the bank realized only limited part of its loans, leaving an equilibrium of $8,900 outstanding. In 1940 the financial institution brought this step from the appellant claiming that $10,000 loan from they on realty company in 1929 was only a renewal or expansion regarding the original $13,000 loan manufactured in 1922 and tried to recoup of appellant 5/20 or 1/4 associated with the $8,900, or $2,225, shortage which had been appellant’s proportionate display regarding the initial $13,000 financing manufactured in 1922 beneath the writing finalized by appellant in 1922 in connection with the first financing.