Opinion
Rodney G. Bryson, Judge.
Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.
Rouse, Rate Adams for appellee.
THOUGHTS OF THIS COURT BY JUDGE RATLIFF
The appellant, J.M. Crowe, is the owner of 5/20 (1/4) associated with the stock of Barrington Woods Realty Company, a corporation, hereinafter known as realty company. On March 22, 1922, the realty team lent of appellee, The Covington Trust and Banking providers, hereinafter called the lender, the sum of $13,000 confirmed by thirteen $1,000 records payable on or before 36 months after time, and guaranteed same by a first mortgage regarding house of realty providers. Prior to the financing ended up being consummated, as well as the financial in the home, the stockholders associated with the realty organization, like appellant, accomplished and shipped to the bank these crafting:
“This Arrangement Witnesseth:
“That, Whereas, The Barrington Woods Realty business, a corporation under the laws and regulations of State of Kentucky, are desirous of obtaining through the Covington benefit financial and count on Company, of Covington, Kentucky, that loan from inside the amount of $13,000.00, said financing is protected by a mortgage on homes of said Realty business in Kenton state, Kentucky, and
“Whereas, the stated Covington benefit lender and believe organization was happy to create said mortgage, offered every one of the stockholders of said Realty business agree written down towards the delivery of home loan securing said mortgage, and additional agree to indemnify mentioned cost savings Bank and count on team against any reduction, cost or expenditure by cause on the generating of said loan;
“Now, thus, in factor of the making of said loan by said benefit lender and believe providers to mentioned Realty team, the undersigned, getting all the stockholders of said Realty Company, carry out hereby consent on the execution of said mortgage and additional say yes to keep the stated The Covington Savings financial and Trust Company safe and benign from any loss, cost or costs that may occur by reasons of approving of said loan, said assurance staying in percentage towards holdings from the a number of stockholders in said Realty Company, as follows:
Whenever the records developed on March 22, 1925, they were maybe not compensated or revived and obviously little had been complete regarding the procedure until on or about March 25, 1929, of which times, with no involvement or actions for appellant, others stockholders for the realty team and the bank generated funds in regards to the notes performed in 1922 and various other issues. Caused by the settlement had been the realty providers accomplished to your bank ten $1,000 brand new notes due and payable three-years from big date, or March 25, 1932, and terminated or marked compensated the old records, and the financial that has been provided by the realty business to protected the old records representing the 1922 $13,000 
financing premiered from the bank inside the margin associated with the home loan guide in which it had been recorded in the office of Kenton state judge clerk, and also the realty organization accomplished on bank a home loan on its land to protect the installment associated with the $10,000 latest notes accomplished March 25, 1929, which mortgage got duly tape-recorded inside region legal clerk’s office.
When the ten $1,000 records performed on March 25, 1929, developed on March 25, 1932, no effort was developed by the lender to gather the notes by foreclosure legal proceeding on home loan or otherwise and evidently absolutely nothing ended up being accomplished regarding situation until 1938 whenever financial charged the realty providers to collect the $10,000 loan manufactured in March, 1929, in order to foreclose the home loan executed by the realty business to protected the repayment of the same. View was actually rendered in favor of the lender together with mortgaged land bought ended up selling to fulfill the judgment, interest and value, etc., which was accomplished, but in those days the assets with the realty company are insufficient to fulfill the wisdom therefore the financial understood merely a tiny part of its obligations, leaving a balance of $8,900 delinquent. In 1940 the lender brought this process resistant to the appellant claiming that the $10,000 mortgage from it into realty business in 1929 was only a renewal or extension associated with initial $13,000 loan made in 1922 and wanted to recover of appellant 5/20 or 1/4 with the $8,900, or $2,225, shortage that has been appellant’s proportionate display for the initial $13,000 mortgage produced in 1922 underneath the publishing closed by appellant in 1922 relating to the initial financing.