Hollis signed and acknowledged, because it is prefaced with the following statement: ‘WHEREAS, Lender is unwilling to extend credit to Borrower unless the undersigned, HOLLIS SMITH (the “Guarantor”), shall guarantee payment to Lender of the Obligations, as hereinafter defined....” Furthermore, in its own analysis of this argument, the circuit court found the one-day delay between Hollis’s execution of the $500,000 promissory note on behalf of Brooks and Hollis’s execution of the guaranty agreement in his individual capacity to be immaterial and warrant no further consideration. This, the circuit court reasoned, is because it considered the promissory note and guaranty agreement to be a part of the same transaction. See, e.g., Spreen v. Ruth, 14 Ky. L. Rptr. 154, 19 S.W. 583, 584 (1892) (<HOLDING>). We are inclined to agree with the circuit
holding that when the holder of a land contract repurchases the land in foreclosure the contract between the parties is effectively canceled and the purchaser is relieved of any unperformed obligations of the contract holding that a land sale contract executed on june 24 1887 a conveyance of the land executed on june 281887 and a guaranty executed on july 2 1887 all evidenced the contract between the parties and must be treated as one agreement holding that where guaranty and mortgage were not executed simultaneously even a trifling inconvenience to the guarantee constitutes sufficient consideration holding that option amount that is 53 of cash sale price on the date agreement was executed reflected a true lease holding individual who signed contract on behalf of a corporation is individually liable where he knew corporation was not incorporated at the time the contract was executed