Rodney G. Bryson, Judge.
Sawyer A. Smith for appellant.
Rouse, Rates Adams for appellee.
OPINION FOR THE COURT BY JUDGE RATLIFF
The appellant, J.M. Crowe, ended up being the owner of 5/20 (1/4) in the stock on the Barrington forest Realty business, a corporation, hereinafter called the realty team. On March 22, 1922, the realty business lent of appellee, The Covington believe and Banking team, hereinafter known as lender, the sum of $13,000 confirmed by thirteen $1,000 notes payable on or before 36 months after big date, and protected exact same by a primary home loan from the home of the realty company. Ahead of the loan was actually consummated, as well as the financial regarding the homes, the stockholders associated with the realty team, like appellant, performed and brought to the lender listed here writing:
“This Agreement Witnesseth:
“That, Whereas, The Barrington Woods Realty team, a business within the rules of county of Kentucky, are desirous of getting through the Covington cost savings Bank and confidence Company, of Covington, Kentucky, that loan in the sum of $13,000.00, mentioned loan to get secured by a home loan in the home of said Realty business in Kenton state, Kentucky, and
“while, the stated Covington benefit financial and count on business was ready to make mentioned financing, given all the stockholders of said Realty team concur on paper into the execution of mortgage securing said mortgage, and additional consent to indemnify stated benefit financial and Trust Company against any control, expense or expenditure by reasons associated with the making of said financing;
“today, thus, in factor of making of said loan by mentioned benefit Bank and confidence organization to stated Realty business, the undersigned direct installment loan lenders in Alaska, are the stockholders of said Realty Company, do hereby consent for the execution of said mortgage and additional consent to support the stated The Covington Savings Bank and depend on business safe and harmless from any control, cost or cost that may arise by reasons on the approving of said loan, said assurance staying in proportion to your holdings associated with the several stockholders in said Realty team, as follows:
Whenever the records matured on March 22, 1925, these people were not settled or restored and obviously nothing was actually completed regarding issue until on or around March 25, 1929, of which times, without any engagement or activity on the part of appellant, additional stockholders associated with realty business plus the bank generated money in regards to the notes executed in 1922 as well as other things. Caused by the settlement was actually your realty providers executed towards the lender ten $1,000 new records because of and payable three years from go out, or March 25, 1932, and cancelled or noted settled the old notes, and the financial which had been provided by the realty organization to secure the old records symbolizing the 1922 $13,000 loan was released by the lender within the margin of the home loan publication in which it absolutely was tape-recorded in the office in the Kenton region legal clerk, and also the realty company accomplished to your financial a unique mortgage on the homes to lock in the payment regarding the $10,000 newer records accomplished March 25, 1929, which financial had been properly taped in region court clerk’s office.
Whenever the ten $1,000 records accomplished on March 25, 1929, developed on March 25, 1932, no efforts was made from the bank to collect the records by foreclosure legal proceeding from the mortgage or perhaps and apparently little was completed regarding the situation until 1938 when the lender prosecuted the realty organization to get the $10,000 financing produced in March, 1929, and also to foreclose the mortgage accomplished from the realty company to lock in the cost of the same. Wisdom was rendered in support of the bank while the mortgaged residential property ordered marketed to fulfill the view, interest and value, etc., that has been complete, but at that moment the property of this realty team comprise insufficient to fulfill the judgment and financial discovered only limited section of the loans, leaving a balance of $8,900 outstanding. 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.