Crowe v. Covington Trust Banking Co. attraction from Kenton Circuit courtroom; Common Law and assets unit.
Viewpoint
Rodney G. Bryson, Assess.
Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.
Rouse, Rates Adams for appellee.
OPINION FOR THE COURT BY JUDGE RATLIFF
Really appellant, J.M. Crowe, was the owner of 5/20 (1/4) in the stock for the Barrington Woods Realty Company, a corporation, hereinafter known as realty company. On March 22, 1922, the realty organization borrowed of appellee, The Covington rely on and Banking organization, hereinafter called the bank, the sum of $13,000 evidenced by thirteen $1,000 records payable on or before 36 months after go out, and protected same by a first financial from the land of realty business. Prior to the loan is consummated, as well as the home loan from the residential property, the stockholders in the realty company, such as appellant, executed and brought to the lender this amazing crafting:
“This Contract Witnesseth:
“That, while, The Barrington forests Realty organization, an agency in legislation regarding the condition of Kentucky, is actually desirous of getting from The Covington benefit financial and Trust team, of Covington, Kentucky, a loan for the amount of $13,000.00, stated mortgage as secured by a home loan in the house of said Realty business in Kenton district, Kentucky, and
“while, the stated Covington benefit lender and count on organization is willing to render said mortgage, given all the stockholders of said Realty organization consent in writing towards the execution of mortgage securing mentioned financing, and additional agree to indemnify said Savings lender and believe providers against any reduction, price or cost by cause associated with generating of said financing;
“Now, consequently, in consideration of this generating of said financing by said economy Bank and count on business to said Realty providers, the undersigned, are all the stockholders of said Realty team, do hereby consent towards execution of said financial and additional consent to keep the said The Covington cost savings Bank and believe team safe and ordinary from any loss, cost or expenses which could happen by reasons in the approving of said mortgage, said promise in amount on the holdings in the a number of stockholders in said Realty business, as follows:
Whenever the records matured on March 22, 1925, they certainly were not compensated or restored and evidently absolutely nothing was actually finished in regards to the question until on or around March 25, 1929, at which time, without having any participation or action on the part of appellant, one other stockholders for the realty team as well as the financial made money in regard to the notes performed in 1922 along with other matters. The consequence of the settlement was that realty organization executed on lender ten $1,000 latest records due and payable 3 years from date, or March 25, 1932, and cancelled or noted compensated the existing records, plus the financial which was given by the realty organization to protected the outdated records representing the 1922 $13,000 loan was launched from the bank from inside the margin associated with the home loan publication where it had been taped at the office best personal loan company Nebraska regarding the Kenton region legal clerk, and realty providers accomplished into the bank a fresh home loan on their land to lock in the cost from the $10,000 new records accomplished March 25, 1929, which financial had been properly recorded into the district courtroom clerk’s workplace.
Whenever the ten $1,000 records performed on March 25, 1929, developed on March 25, 1932, no energy was made of the bank to get the notes by foreclosure procedures regarding home loan or elsewhere and it seems that absolutely nothing was actually done concerning issue until 1938 whenever the financial charged the realty company to gather the $10,000 mortgage made in March, 1929, and to foreclose the home loan performed of the realty company to protected the payment of the identical. View is made in favor of the lender therefore the mortgaged house purchased marketed to satisfy the judgment, interest and cost, etc., which had been finished, but during that time the assets in the realty team were insufficient to satisfy the judgment while the bank noticed best a small element of the financial obligation, leaving a balance of $8,900 delinquent. In 1940 the bank delivered this step resistant to the appellant saying your $10,000 financing made by it on realty company in 1929 was only a renewal or extension of the initial $13,000 mortgage manufactured in 1922 and tried to recuperate of appellant 5/20 or 1/4 associated with the $8,900, or $2,225, deficit that was appellant’s proportionate show associated with the initial $13,000 mortgage made in 1922 within the writing finalized by appellant in 1922 in connection with the initial loan.