Rodney G. Bryson, Judge.
Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.
Rouse, Terms Adams for appellee.
VIEW OF THIS COURT BY ASSESS RATLIFF
The appellant, J.M. Crowe, was the master of 5/20 (1/4) regarding the inventory associated with the Barrington Woods Realty business, an agency, hereinafter known as realty providers. On March 22, 1922, the realty business lent of appellee, The Covington count on and Banking team, hereinafter called the bank, the sum of $13,000 confirmed by thirteen $1,000 notes payable on or before three years after big date, and guaranteed exact same by a first financial regarding the homes in the realty team. Before the mortgage was consummated, as well as the mortgage in the homes, the stockholders associated with realty providers, such as appellant, executed and delivered to the financial institution this amazing crafting:
“This Arrangement Witnesseth:
“That, while, The Barrington forests Realty Company, a company according to the laws and regulations with the county of Kentucky, try desirous of obtaining through the Covington benefit financial and believe team, of Covington, Kentucky, that loan from inside the sum of $13,000.00, mentioned financing are guaranteed by a mortgage regarding homes of said Realty organization in Kenton County, Kentucky, and
“Whereas, the said Covington benefit lender and rely on providers is actually ready to generate stated financing, offered most of the stockholders of said Realty organization agree written down on delivery of financial securing mentioned mortgage, and additional consent to indemnify said economy Bank and count on providers against any loss, expense or expenditure by factor of making of said mortgage;
“today, thus, in factor with the creating of said mortgage by said benefit Bank and confidence business to mentioned Realty organization, the undersigned, getting every stockholders of said Realty business, carry out hereby consent toward delivery of said home loan and additional consent to secure the said The Covington cost savings Bank and rely on Company safe and ordinary from any loss, price or costs that’ll arise by reason for the approving of said loan, said assurance staying in proportion to the holdings with the several stockholders in said Realty organization, as follows:
Once the notes developed on March 22, 1925, they certainly were perhaps not compensated or renewed and seemingly little got completed regarding procedure until on or just around March 25, 1929, from which time, without any involvement or action for appellant, one other stockholders on the realty company in addition to financial generated a settlement in regards to the notes performed in 1922 along with other matters. Caused by the settlement was your realty business executed towards the bank ten $1,000 newer records due and payable 36 months from time, or March 25, 1932, and cancelled or marked compensated the outdated notes, in addition to financial which had been written by the realty team to protected the old records representing the 1922 $13,000 financing was released because of the bank inside the margin of the mortgage book in which it actually was tape-recorded in the workplace in the Kenton county legal clerk, additionally the realty organization performed into the bank a fresh home loan on their land to secure the fees of $10,000 brand-new records performed March 25, 1929, which home loan is duly recorded within the district courtroom clerk’s company.
As soon as the ten $1,000 records performed on March 25, 1929, matured on March 25, 1932, no energy was developed by the bank to get the records by property foreclosure proceedings in the financial or elsewhere and evidently absolutely nothing got finished regarding the point until 1938 whenever the lender prosecuted the realty business to collect the $10,000 loan built in March, 1929, also to foreclose the financial accomplished by the realty organization to lock in the installment of the identical. View ended up being made and only the lender and the mortgaged residential property purchased offered to fulfill the view, interest and value, etc., that was finished, but during those times the possessions of this realty providers happened to be insufficient to satisfy the wisdom together with lender discovered only a tiny section of the obligations, making a balance of $8,900 unpaid. 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.