Rodney G. Bryson, Judge.
Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.
Rouse, Costs Adams for appellee.
VIEW OF THIS COURT BY JUDGE RATLIFF
The appellant, J.M. Crowe, is the master of 5/20 (1/4) of this stock of the Barrington Woods Realty Company, an agency, hereinafter called the realty company. On March 22, 1922, the realty providers lent of appellee, The Covington Trust and financial business, hereinafter called the lender, the sum of the $13,000 confirmed by thirteen $1,000 records payable on or before 36 months after big date, and secured exact same by a primary financial in the belongings from the realty team. Before the loan was consummated, in addition to the home loan on the house, the stockholders from the realty organization, including appellant, executed and brought to the financial institution this amazing writing:
“This Agreement Witnesseth:
“That, Whereas, The Barrington forests Realty team, a firm according to the statutes of condition of Kentucky, try desirous of obtaining through the Covington discount lender and believe providers, of Covington, Kentucky, a loan within the sum of $13,000.00, mentioned financing to get protected by a mortgage in the land of said Realty team in Kenton County, Kentucky, and
“while, the stated Covington Savings Bank and confidence business are willing to render stated loan, offered all the stockholders installment loans in Arkansas city of said Realty team consent written down with the performance of financial securing said loan, and further accept indemnify stated economy financial and believe business against any reduction, expenses or expenditure by need for the creating of said financing;
“today, consequently, in factor of this making of said financing by said cost savings lender and count on organization to mentioned Realty Company, the undersigned, being all of the stockholders of said Realty organization, manage hereby consent towards the delivery of said financial and further accept secure the said The Covington economy financial and believe organization as well as ordinary from any reduction, expense or cost which will develop by explanation with the giving of said mortgage, said guarantee staying in amount to your holdings with the several stockholders in said Realty business, as follows:
Whenever the notes matured on March 22, 1925, these people were perhaps not paid or revived and evidently little was actually complete in regards to the question until on or around March 25, 1929, from which times, without the involvement or activity on the part of appellant, one other stockholders in the realty team and also the lender produced money regarding the records performed in 1922 and various other matters. Caused by the settlement was the realty team accomplished to your bank ten $1,000 brand-new notes because of and payable three years from go out, or March 25, 1932, and cancelled or designated compensated the outdated records, in addition to mortgage which had been written by the realty team to protect the existing records representing the 1922 $13,000 financing was released of the bank inside the margin associated with financial guide where it had been taped in the office on the Kenton region court clerk, together with realty business performed towards lender a fresh mortgage on their land to protect the installment of the $10,000 brand-new records performed March 25, 1929, which home loan was actually properly taped for the county courtroom clerk’s office.
If the ten $1,000 records accomplished on March 25, 1929, matured on March 25, 1932, no work was made because of the financial to collect the records by property foreclosure process regarding the mortgage or otherwise and seemingly little was actually complete about the question until 1938 whenever lender charged the realty company to gather the $10,000 financing built in March, 1929, and to foreclose the mortgage accomplished by the realty organization to secure the payment of the identical. Wisdom ended up being made in support of the financial institution additionally the mortgaged house ordered marketed to fulfill the judgment, interest and cost, etc., that has been accomplished, but during that time the possessions associated with the realty business comprise inadequate to satisfy the view and also the financial knew just a tiny section of the loans, leaving 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.