Crowe v. Covington depend on Banking Co. Appeal from Kenton routine Court; common-law and money unit.

Crowe v. Covington depend on Banking Co. Appeal from Kenton routine Court; common-law and money unit.

Advice

Rodney G. Bryson, Assess.

Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.

Rouse, Cost Adams for appellee.

VIEW ON THE COURT BY ASSESS RATLIFF

The appellant, J.M. Crowe, is the owner of 5/20 (1/4) associated with the stock from the Barrington Woods Realty business, a business, hereinafter called the realty company. On March 22, 1922, the realty company borrowed of appellee, The Covington confidence and Banking team, hereinafter known as bank, the sum $13,000 confirmed by thirteen $1,000 records payable on or before three-years after go out, and protected same by an initial financial about land on the realty business. Before the loan was actually consummated, in addition to the home loan regarding the homes, the stockholders associated with the realty team, like appellant, executed and sent to the bank the next crafting:

“This Contract Witnesseth:

“That, while, The Barrington forests Realty providers, a business in regulations associated with the State of Kentucky, was desirous of getting from The Covington benefit financial and count on business, of Covington, Kentucky, financing during the amount of $13,000.00, mentioned financing become secured by a home loan regarding the residential property of said Realty providers in Kenton County, Kentucky, and

“Whereas, the said Covington economy lender and depend on organization try willing to make mentioned mortgage, given all stockholders of said Realty team consent in writing on the execution of home loan securing stated financing, and additional say yes to indemnify said economy lender and count on business against any reduction, price or expenditure by explanation from the generating of said loan;

“today, thus, in consideration associated with the generating of said loan by mentioned Savings lender and depend on business to said Realty Company, the undersigned, being every stockholders of said Realty business, do hereby consent to your performance of said home loan and additional accept contain the said The Covington economy financial and confidence organization as well as safe from any reduction, expenses or cost which could occur by factor of this approving of said loan, said promise in percentage on the holdings of the several stockholders in said Realty team, as follows:

After notes matured on March 22, 1925, they certainly were not settled or revived and obviously nothing is complete concerning matter until on or around March 25, 1929, where opportunity, with no engagement or action for appellant, one other stockholders associated with the realty company and also the bank made funds in regard to the notes executed in 1922 and other matters. The consequence of the payment was actually that realty providers performed with the bank ten $1,000 latest records due and payable 3 years from big date, or March 25, 1932, and cancelled or marked compensated the old notes, in addition to home loan which had been given by the realty providers to protected the old notes symbolizing the 1922 $13,000 financing was launched from the lender within the margin on the home loan guide where it absolutely was taped at work in the Kenton district legal clerk, therefore the realty organization executed into bank an innovative new mortgage on the belongings to lock in the cost associated with $10,000 brand-new records executed March 25, 1929, which home loan was actually properly taped into the district judge clerk’s workplace.

Once the ten $1,000 records executed on March 25, 1929, developed on March 25, 1932 installment loans Missouri, no efforts was developed from the lender to get the records by foreclosure legal proceeding from the home loan or else and apparently nothing had been accomplished concerning the situation until 1938 as soon as the bank sued the realty providers to collect the $10,000 loan built in March, 1929, in order to foreclose the home loan executed by the realty company to secure the repayment of the same. Wisdom is rendered in favor of the lender plus the mortgaged house bought sold to meet the wisdom, interest and cost, etc., that was completed, but in those days the assets of this realty business comprise insufficient to meet the judgment together with financial recognized just a tiny element of the debt, leaving a balance of $8,900 delinquent. 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.

Leave a Reply