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

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

Advice

Rodney G. Bryson, Assess.

Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.

Rouse, Cost Adams for appellee.

VIEW ASSOCIATED WITH COURT BY ASSESS RATLIFF

Their appellant, J.M. Crowe, is who owns 5/20 (1/4) with the stock regarding the Barrington Woods Realty Company, a corporation, hereinafter called the realty company. On March 22, 1922, the realty providers borrowed of appellee, The Covington confidence and Banking team, hereinafter known as bank, the sum $13,000 evidenced by thirteen $1,000 notes payable on or before three-years after date, and guaranteed same by a primary financial on house from the realty company. Before the loan was consummated, aside from the financial on residential property, the stockholders on the realty company, such as appellant, performed and delivered to the financial institution the subsequent crafting:

“This Contract Witnesseth:

“That, Whereas, The Barrington forests Realty Company, an agency beneath the laws for the condition of Kentucky, are desirous of obtaining from Covington Savings financial and believe Company, of Covington, Kentucky, that loan within the sum of $13,000.00, said mortgage becoming guaranteed by a mortgage about land of said Realty business in Kenton state, Kentucky, and

“while, the stated Covington benefit lender and count on organization is prepared to generate stated financing, given all of the stockholders of said Realty Company concur in writing towards execution of financial securing mentioned financing, and additional accept to indemnify mentioned Savings lender and confidence business against any control, expense or expense by reason for the generating of said mortgage;

“today, thus, in factor on the generating of said financing by mentioned economy lender and believe team to said Realty organization, the undersigned, getting all of the stockholders of said Realty team, carry out hereby consent to the performance of said financial and additional agree to keep the said The Covington cost savings Bank and rely on providers safe and safe from any control, expense or costs that could arise by cause on the granting of said loan, said guarantee being in proportion with the holdings associated with the several stockholders in said Realty providers, below:

Whenever the records matured on March 22, 1925, they were maybe not compensated or revived and obviously little ended up being completed in regards to the topic until on or just around March 25, 1929, where time, without the participation or motion on the part of appellant, additional stockholders in the realty providers while the financial made money in regards to the records performed in 1922 and various other matters. Caused by the payment ended up being that the realty company performed into bank ten $1,000 newer notes because of and payable 36 months from date, or March 25, 1932, and terminated or noted paid the outdated notes, together with mortgage that has been written by the realty company to protect the old records representing the 1922 $13,000 mortgage premiered of the lender inside margin of the mortgage guide where it absolutely was recorded in the workplace of the Kenton state courtroom clerk, as well as the realty company executed into the lender a new mortgage on their residential property to lock in the installment for the $10,000 brand new records accomplished March 25, 1929, which financial was duly taped within the region legal clerk’s company.

If the ten $1,000 notes accomplished on March 25, 1929, developed on March 25, 1932, no energy was developed by bank to get the notes by foreclosure procedures on the home loan or elsewhere and seemingly nothing got done about the material until 1938 as soon as the financial charged the realty business to gather the $10,000 financing produced in March, 1929, and foreclose the home loan performed of the realty business to secure the repayment of the identical. View was rendered and only the bank therefore the mortgaged house bought sold to satisfy the wisdom, interest and cost, etc., that was complete, but in those days the possessions of realty providers were insufficient to fulfill the judgment therefore the bank understood merely a tiny element of the personal debt, leaving an equilibrium of $8,900 delinquent. In 1940 the financial institution lead this action resistant to the appellant claiming that $10,000 loan produced by it towards realty company in 1929 was just a renewal or extension with the earliest $13,000 loan manufactured in 1922 and needed to recuperate of appellant 5/20 or 1/4 of the $8,900, or $2,225, deficit that was appellant’s proportionate share of original $13,000 financing built in 1922 under the writing finalized by appellant in 1922 associated with the first financing .

Leave a Reply