William Crowell

Life events

1. about 1726

   Birth

   Massachusetts, United States

2. 30 Mar 1746

   Marriage¹

   Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, United States

   with Anne Cavendish 1727–1757

3. 1754

   Occupation

   Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, United States

   a tailor

4. 24 Jun 1754

   Property²

   Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, British North America

   Property sold to Clifford Crowinshield with 1/3 to John Gavet and wife, 1/3 to Sam'l Clements, and 1/3 to Wm., John, Samuel, Aaron and Robert Crowell.

   Read more

   John Gavet of Salem, Labourer, and Mary, his wife, Samuel Clements of Salem, Tailor, Wm. Crowell of Salem, Tailor, John Crowell of Danvers, Labourer, Samuel Crowell of Salem, Cooper, and Aaron Crowell, Glazier, and Robert Crowell, Labourer, both of Medford, Co. Middlesex, in consideration of five pounds, six shillings and eight pence to them paid by Clifford Crowinshield of said Salem, viz., 1/3 to John Gavet and wife, 1/3 to Sam'l Clements, and 1/3 to Wm., John, Samuel, Aaron and Robert Crowell, convey unto sd Clifford a small piece of land in Salem, bounded S. by sd Crowninshield's land, W. by land of Samuel Whitford, N. on Frie’s land, late Edward Hilliard's, and E. by a way on said Crowninshield's land, with privileges, &c., Ac.

   Signed, &c., this 24th day of June, 1754, in presence of us,

   Joseph Ropes, Nath'l Nurss, Nath'l Brown, Samuel Moses.
   E. S. W.

5. 27 Mar 1759

   Court³

   Ipswich, Essex, Massachusetts, United States

   Filed suit against Timothy Perkins of Middleton for unpaid promissory note and account; judgment awarded £6 6s 3¾d plus £1 16s costs.

   Inferior Court of Common Pleas

   Croell vs Perkins Appeal

   Croell vs Perkins Appeal

   William Croell of Salem in the County Essex Tailor I against Timothy Perkins of Middleton in County Husbandman Defena the Plea of the case for that the said Timothy at Said Salem on the 27th day of June last by his note under his hand for value Appeal Recd & allowed the Ple. to pay him or his order, five pound Seventeen ( meaning Seventeen Shilling 1 ) & Two pence half penny lawfull money in Two month, from the same day yet he hath not paid it the requed but neglected and for that the said Timothy on the same day there owing the nine shilling and Seven pence one farthing for service things according to the account annexed to the writ Promised the to pay the same June ( being what said service things were reasonably worth) to the Hondemand yet he never paid in the Reg bu regcech it To the Damage of the said William a he saith the sum of Eight pounds The appeared but the Dept solemly called to come into Court did not appear but made default It is considered by the Court that the said William Croell Recover of the said Timothy Perkin, Six pound Six Shillings & nine pence three farthing money Dam & Costs at due pound fifteen shilling, the of appealed to the super Court of Judicature to be holden for the County & lated into Recog with sureties as the law direct for prosecuting his appeal to effect.

6. 12 Jun 1759

   Court⁴

   Ipswich, Essex, Massachusetts, United States

   William was awarded payment in damages from Timothy Perkins.

   Superiour Court of Judicature

   Crowll vs Perkins

   Crowll vs Perkins

   William Croell of Salem in the County of Essex Tailer Compt. vs Timothy Perkins of Middleton in the same County Husbandman, the Compts Shaw'd that at an Inferiour Court of Common Pleas held at Ipswich in and for said County of Essex on the last Tuesday of March last, he recovered Judgment against the said Timy. for the sum of £6-6-3/4 Lawful Money Dams. and Costs of Suit, from which Judgment the sd Timy. appealed to this Court and recognized with sureties according to Law to prosecute the same with Effect, but has failed so to do, wherefore the Compt prayd affirmation of said Judgment with additional costs, I therefore Considered by the Court that the said William Croell Recover against the said Timothy Perkins the sum of Six pounds six shillings and 9 3/4 Lawful money of this Provence Damage, and Costs taxed at £3-9-4.

   Execution issued 6th February 1759

7. 4 Jul 1759

   Court⁵

   Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, British North America

   William Crowell, tailor of Salem, sued Abraham Morse, baker of Marblehead, for £7 1s owed on a promissory note dated 8 May 1759. Morse did not appear in court and was defaulted. The court awarded Crowell £9 1s damages plus £1 9s 3d costs. Morse appealed to the Superior Court of Judicature and entered recognizance with sureties.

   Court of Common Pleas

   Crowel v Morse

   Crowel v Morse
   Appeal

   William Crowell of Salem in the County of Essex Taylor Plt
   agt Abraham Morse of Marblehead in sd County
   Baker Deft in a plea of the Case for that the sd Abraham
   at Marblehead on the 8th day of May inst by his note of hand
   of that Date for Value Rec'd Promised the aforesd William to
   pay him or Order the Sum of seven pound one Shilling lawful
   money on demand Yet the sd Abraham tho Often
   Requested hath not paid the Same but refuses to pay it To
   the Damage of the sd William Crowell as he saith the Sum
   of nine pound. The Plt Appeared but the Defendant
   solemnly called to come into Court did not appear
   but made Default. It is Considered by the Court
   that the sd William Crowell Recover of the sd
   Abraham Morse nine pounds One Shilling for
   lawful money Damage & Cost at four pound
   at one pound nine shillings and three pence.

   The Defendant Appealed to the next Superiour Court
   of Judicature to be holden for this County and
   entered into Recog with Sureties as the Law directs for
   prosecuting his Appeal to Effect.

8. 23 Oct 1759

   Court⁶

   Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, British North America

   William won a case against Abraham Morse of Marblehead.

   Croel vs Morse

   Croel vs Morse

   William Croell of Salem in the County of Essex Taylor, Complt Abraham Morse of Marblehead in the same County Baker, The Complt shewd that at an Inferiour Court of Common Pleas held at Salem in and for the County of Essex on the second Tuesday of July last, he recovered Judgment against the said Abraham for the sum of £9-1-4 Lawful money damage, and costs of Suit, from which Judgment the said Abraham appealed to this Court, and Recognized with sureties according to law to prosecute the same with Effect, but failed so to do. Wherefore the Compet pray'd affirmation of Judgment with additional Costs. It is therefore considered by the Court that the said William Croell recover against the said Abraham Morse the sum of nine pounds one shilling and four pence - Lawful money of this Province Damage, and Costs taxed at £2-18-9.

9. 20 May 1760

   Court⁷

   Cambridge, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, United States

   William Crowell, "Taylor" of Salem, was the defendant in a debt case brought by Noah Eaton of Reading. Case settled via arbitration (Referees: Sam. Bancroft, Nath. Osgood, Chad. Ford). Referees found Crowell owed a nominal debt of 10s 8d, but awarded him the £10 in controversy and court costs against the plaintiff.

   Inferiour Court Of Common Pleas

   Read more

   In February 1760, William Crowell, identified as a tailor living in Salem, was sued in the Middlesex County Inferior Court of Common Pleas by Noah Eaton, a cordwainer (shoemaker) from Reading. The dispute centered on a "Note of Hand" (a promissory note) and a sum of £10 that Eaton had previously paid to Crowell. Rather than proceeding to a jury trial, both men agreed to a "Rule of Court," submitting the case to three independent referees: Samuel Bancroft Jr., Nathaniel Osgood, and Chadwallader Ford.

   In May 1760, the referees determined that Crowell technically owed Eaton a very small amount—only 10 shillings and 8 pence (the equivalent of 4 pounds in "Old Tenor" currency). However, because Eaton’s legal claim was significantly higher than what was actually owed, the court ruled in Crowell's favor regarding the bulk of the dispute. Crowell was allowed to keep the original £10 permanently and was even awarded the court costs to be paid by Eaton. This record is genealogically significant as it clearly distinguishes this William Crowell by his trade as a tailor, separating him from the Salem jailer of the same name.

   Document Transcript

   Eaton
   v.
   Crowell

   Noah Eaton of Reading in the County of Midd[lesex] Cordwainer Pl[aintif]f v.
   William Crowell of Salem in the County of Essex Taylor Def[endan]t In a Plea
   of the Case as in the Writ on file dated the 21st of Febru[ary] 1760. This
   Action commenced at the last Term, when & where both Parties
   entred into a Rule of Court to refer this Action & all Demands
   between them to the Determination of Mess[rs] Sam[uel] Bancroft Jun[ior]
   & Nath[aniel] Osgood chosen by the Parties & Chadwal Ford Esq[r] ap-
   pointed by the Court, and agreed to abide by their Award or Report
   or of any two of them (upon Notice given to the three) And if
   the said Referees think it reasonable that the ten Pounds paid
   by said Eaton to said Crowell or any Part thereof should be refund-
   ed, they may report accordingly: and then the Action was conti-
   nued to this Time for their Report. And now two of the P[arty] Referees
   viz: Nathaniel Osgood & Chadwal[lader] Ford report that having attend-
   ed that Service & fully heard the Parties, report as followeth Viz:
   That Noah Eaton the within Pl[aintif]f recover against the Def[endan]t four
   Pounds old Tenor or ten Shillings & eight Pence lawfull Money, which
   we find due to him, and no more; And because the Note of hand
   in Controversy was wrote for four Pounds lawfull Money, we there-
   fore find Costs due to the Def[endan]t and that the said within Crowell
   the Def[endan]t recover the same against Eaton the Def[endan]t and that the
   ten Pounds referr’d remain & abide in the Hands of the Def[endan]t forever
   The foregoing Report read & accepted, and Order’d that the Judgm[en]t
   of the Court be according thereto.