Crowe v. Covington count on financial Co. attraction from Kenton Circuit courtroom; Common Law and assets unit.
View
Rodney G. Bryson, Assess.
Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.
Rouse, Rates Adams for appellee.
ADVICE FOR THE COURT BY JUDGE RATLIFF
Their appellant, J.M. Crowe, was the owner of 5/20 (1/4) regarding the stock regarding the Barrington Woods Realty Company, a corporation, hereinafter called the realty company. On March 22, 1922, the realty team borrowed of appellee, The Covington count on and Banking Company, hereinafter known as financial, the sum $13,000 confirmed by thirteen $1,000 notes payable on or check this before three-years after big date, and secured exact same by a first financial on the homes for the realty providers. Prior to the loan was consummated, aside from the mortgage regarding homes, the stockholders associated with realty team, like appellant, executed and sent to the financial institution listed here writing:
“This Contract Witnesseth:
“That, while, The Barrington forest Realty business, a firm beneath the statutes on the county of Kentucky, was desirous of obtaining through the Covington cost savings Bank and believe providers, of Covington, Kentucky, financing during the amount of $13,000.00, mentioned mortgage to-be secured by home financing regarding belongings of said Realty business in Kenton County, Kentucky, and
“while, the said Covington economy lender and rely on business is actually willing to render stated mortgage, supplied the stockholders of said Realty organization consent written down for the execution of mortgage securing stated loan, and additional consent to indemnify mentioned benefit Bank and depend on providers against any reduction, expense or expenditure by cause of the creating of said financing;
“Now, thus, in factor with the making of said financing by said cost savings Bank and depend on Company to mentioned Realty providers, the undersigned, getting all stockholders of said Realty providers, manage hereby consent to the delivery of said financial and further agree to support the said The Covington cost savings lender and believe team as well as ordinary from any loss, price or expenses which will arise by reason associated with granting of said financing, mentioned guarantee in proportion for the holdings on the several stockholders in said Realty providers, as follows:
As soon as the records matured on March 22, 1925, these were not paid or revived and seemingly nothing ended up being completed regarding the thing until on or around March 25, 1929, of which opportunity, without the involvement or action on the part of appellant, one other stockholders of realty business plus the bank made funds in regards to the records executed in 1922 alongside issues. The consequence of the settlement is that the realty team accomplished for the financial ten $1,000 new records due and payable three years from big date, or March 25, 1932, and cancelled or designated settled the outdated records, therefore the financial which was provided by the realty team to protected the existing records representing the 1922 $13,000 loan was launched by lender from inside the margin regarding the financial guide where it had been taped at the office regarding the Kenton state courtroom clerk, and also the realty team performed for the lender another financial on the property to secure the fees from the $10,000 brand-new notes performed March 25, 1929, which home loan had been duly tape-recorded in the county courtroom clerk’s workplace.
Once the ten $1,000 records accomplished on March 25, 1929, developed on March 25, 1932, no work was made by the financial to collect the notes by property foreclosure procedures on the mortgage or else and apparently absolutely nothing got finished concerning thing until 1938 once the financial charged the realty team to get the $10,000 loan made in March, 1929, and foreclose the financial performed by the realty providers to protected the payment of the identical. View ended up being rendered in support of the bank and also the mortgaged homes purchased marketed to fulfill the judgment, interest and cost, etc., that was complete, but during those times the property associated with realty team were inadequate to fulfill the view together with lender knew only a little element of the loans, making an equilibrium of $8,900 outstanding. In 1940 the lender produced this action against the appellant claiming that $10,000 loan created by it towards the realty providers in 1929 was only a renewal or expansion from the earliest $13,000 loan made in 1922 and needed to recover of appellant 5/20 or 1/4 of this $8,900, or $2,225, deficit which had been appellant’s proportionate share of this earliest $13,000 mortgage built in 1922 in writing closed by appellant in 1922 relating to the first mortgage.