A Curious Business

Several years before David Tyrie came to national attention, he was involved in a case that nevertheless attracted a certain level of notoriety in the business world.

The tale is a complicated one, and only certain pieces of the jigsaw appear to surive. But it begins with a certain Mr. Robert Crowe mortgaging some property to David Tyrie and John Parker for 30,000l.

Tyrie, who already had a banker’s loan for 10,000l., then borrowed another 2000l. using the property as collateral, on the understanding that all three (Tyrie, Parker, and Crowe) were signatories to the agreement.

By lease and release, April 1777

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tOdLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA50

Reports of Cases Upon Appeals and Writs of Error in the High Court of Parliament, Volume II, 1795

pp. 50-51

Case 23

THOMAS CROWE Esq. Appellant

JOHN HALLIDAY, Simon Halliday, Sir John Dantze, William Mackworth Praed, Joseph Saunders, and Daniel Hamilton Respondents

April 2d. 1788

ROBERT CROWE, by lease and release, bearing date respectively the 30th of April, and 1st of May, 1777, in consideration of 30,000l. conveyed in mortgage unto John Parker and David Tyrie, their heirs, and assigns for ever, the town and lands of Nutfield, with several other lands in the country of Clare, and covenanted that he stood seized in fee of the premises, and had sufficient power to the said grant.

David Tyrie being indebted to the respondents who were bankers in London, in sum of 10,000l. proposed, that if respondents would advance a further sum of 2,000l. and take an assignement of mortgage, with Tyrie’s own collateral security for the whole, the mortgage should be assigned to the respondents as a security for both sums, and that Robert Crowe and John Parker should join in the assignment. This proposal being accepted of, deeds of lease and release, bearing date 27th and 28th of July, 1777, were accordingly executed.

When the mortgage payments slipped, the lenders discovered that Robert Crowe hadn’t been in a position to mortgage the property anway, and they attempted to foreclose on the loan.

By lease and release, April 1777

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tOdLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA51

Reports of Cases Upon Appeals and Writs of Error in the High Court of Parliament, Volume II, 1795

pp. 51

The sum secured by this mortgage not being paid, and the respondents discovering that Robert Crowe had but an estate for life in the lands, they on the 11th of June, 1779, filed a bill in the Exchequer, against Robert Crowe, John Parker, and others, praying an account and foreclosure, and that a receiver might be appointed, to receive the rents and profits of the mortgaged premises. The defendants in their answers admitted the mortgages, but Robert Crowe alleged that the mortgage of the first of May was executed for particular private purposes of his own, and for a nominal, not a real consideration of 30,000l.

At this point, the three partners were declared bankrupt.

Bankrupts, September 1778

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000317/17780921/013/0004 Northampton Mercury - Monday 21 September 1778

Similar notices elsewhere, e.g. Norfolk Chronicle - Saturday 19 September 1778

BANKRUPTS. John Parker, of St. James’s, Westminster, Middlesex, Robert Crowe, and David Tyrie, both of Chads-Row, St. James’s, Middlesex, Merchants: To surrender Sept. 14, 26, and Oct. 24, at Guildhall, London. Attorney, Mr. Daniel, Fenchurch-Stteet.

As later news reports described it (for example, Norfolk Chronicle - Saturday 15 July 1780):

[In September, 1778] a Commission of Bankruptcy was issued out against Robert Crowe, John Parker, and David Tyrie, joint Traders, and Partners in a Distillery in Compton street, Clerkenwell, and other trading Business;

In such a declaration, a Trader declaring themselves bankrupt might ordinarily be expected to sell their estate and make good their debts to their creditors, as best they could.

But David Tyrie and his partners were, it seems, creative souls.

Shortly after the issuing out of this Commission, Messrs. Crowe and Parker petitioned the Lord Chancellor to supersede it, upon the Ground that they were not Partners with Mr. Tyrie.

We might imagine, then, that the bankruptcy arose from Tyrie not paying his debts; and that the lenders then took action, and justifiably so, against all three of the supposed partners.

At the court of Common Pleas on 25th June 1779, an action then appears to have been taken against Crowe, making him responsible for Tyrie’s debts by virtue of being in partnership with him.

Although I haven’t found any transcripts or direct reports of the case, we can piece together elements of what happened from reports on later cases.

In the first instance, it seems that the plaintiffs (the assignees of the mortgage in the bankruptcy case) had a good case against Crowe. But Tyrie managed to persuade them (the plaintiffs) that their case would be strengthened if they called a certain Michael Green, along with several others, to provide additional testimony. In particular, Green would swear under oath that he had dealt with Crowe in Ipswich and London, selling “corn” on commission, as well as engaging in other bits of trade in “tin, copper, and pigs” on his behalf.

Presumably, the plaintiffs were successful in making that case, at that time, against Crowe.

Indicted for perjury, October 1779

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/record/t17791020-40?text=green perjury Proceedings of the Old Bailey, 20th October, 1779.

517. MICHAEL GREEN was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury, June 21st, 1779.

To which he pleaded GUILTY.

(Judgement was respited till next Session .)

It then turned out, in a case made against Green, in October, 1779, that he had committed perjury at the previous trial, for which he was to have received 500l. “if the scheme to draw Crowe in as a third partner in the bankruptcy had fully succeeded, and all his effects been secured to the assignees”. The truth of the matter was that Green had never even met Crowe (or Parker), and instead was a hired hand, employed by the assignees and a banker who we might imagine was one of Tyrie’s creditors. To add further colour to the story, it seems that Green was also a member of a group known as the Family Compact, who appear to have made a living by providing false evidence and testimony for financial gain and to bring ruin on others.

The Family Compact, October 1779

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000191/17791030/004/0002 Ipswich Journal - Saturday 30 October 1779

9. The case of Michael Green, who pleaded guilty on Saturday at the Old-Bailey to an Indictment for wilful and corrupt perjury, is of so horrid and singular a nature, that had not the prisoner acquiesced in all the circumstances of it, as stated by Mr. Howarth, it would not have been credible.— The prisoner at the bar, was a member of a club called the Family Compact. This club was instituted to carry on the triple scheme of perjury, rapine, and ruin to the most respectable families. The present matter was a cause at issue in the court of Common Pleas, to try whether a gentleman worth 20,000l. was a Trader, so as to make him an object of the bankrupt law. The prisoner on that trial swore he had frequently dealt with this gentleman in Ipswich (where he resided*) and also in London; that he had been employed by him to sell corn at 9d. per quarter commission; and deposed to other facts of trading. The truth now appears to be, that the gentleman never saw this wretch, and never employed him. The counsel said, that he hoped the bench would require of the prisoner more atonement than a bare confession of his guilt; and as he had shewn so far a sense of it as to save the time of the court by his plea, he trusted he would do benefit to society by a discovery of his accomplices. The prisoner said he was suborned by the assignees and a certain banker, of whom he was to receive 500l. if the scheme of drawing in the gentleman as a third partner in the bankruptcy had fully succeeded, and all his effects been secured to the assignees. The court restricted judgment until the next sessions, and exorted the prisoner to make an ample discovery of the other members of the Family Compact, which he promised to do, and under that consideration his sentence will be mitigated, provided he does not prevaricate or deceive.

* Michael Green, about 2 years since, took a shop in St. Nicholas, Ipswich, where he told linen-drapery, &c. but resided here only 3 months, in which time he got a knowledge of Mr. Robert Trotman, a gentleman who has been times subpoena’d in the above trial. Whilst here, his character became suspicious, and his landlord wrote into Yorkshire about him; the answer, amongst other particulars, says that he, (Green) paid his addresses to the daughter of a person of property, and in order to deceive her friends, he collected together a number of pretended tenants; the scheme succeeded— the father thought him a man of fortune, and gave him his daughter, with a gentell portion.

Michael Green returns to Court, December 1779

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000071/17791218/003/0002 Ipswich Journal - Saturday 18 December 1779

Last week at the sessions at the Old Bailey, the counsel for the prosecution of Michael Green, (late of St. Nicholas parish, Ipswich) who pleaded guilty the last sessioms to an indictment for perjury, and sentence was deferred in order that he might make discovery of the real persons who seduced him, informed the court the said Michael Green had at first charged some respectable characters in the city of London; that he had since declared the same to be false, and he had falsely charged other characters equally respectable; that having prevaricated so much, not the least credit could be given any thing he said; that by such means he had aggravated his offence, and moved for judgment accordingly, whereupon the court ordered him to be put in the pillory, and to be imprisoned 12 months in Newgate. See B 9, Oct. 30.

Three months later, a case appears to have been filed against Crowe, presumably as a result of attempts being made to foreclose on the property mortgaged in the original deal, suggesting that he had not been in a position to mortage the property in the first place:

On the 8th of March 1780, Anne Evans and William Putland filed a bill in the Exchequer, for the foreclosure of a mortgage of the same premises, alleged to have been executed to Anne, by Robert Crowe, on the first of November, 1776.

That said, this claim does not appear to have impacted on things until a later date, and a later court case.

In July 1780, the assignees and Robert Crowe were in court again, this time at the Court of Chancery, “try[ing] the validity of a Commission of Bankruptcy, issued by the Plaintiffs as petitioning Creditors against the Defendant” and attempting to demonstrate for a second time that the defendant, Robert Crowe, as well as John Parker, were in trade or partnership. But with Green’s previous testimony being identified as false, the Court ruled “that they were private Gentlemen, never concerned in any business, and that the Commission was taken out in order to fix their estates, with the debts of one David Tyrie, to the amount of 20,000l.”, and the judge recommended that the jury find in favour of Crowe, and against Commission; which they promptly did.

During the hearing, several more details about the Family Compact were also revealed. It appears that in the original Court of Pleas case, he “was dressed up for the purpose, with a suitable apparel, such as boots, &c &c. and that those boots were bought for him, and specifically charged in a Tavern bill, where he and the rest of his gang dined on the day of trial, and that this bill was paid by the Plaintiff’s Attorney”. It also appeared to be the caxe “that another of those hired witnesses wanted shoes to appear in, and a pair of new shoes was bought for him, and paid for in the same manner”. In the current hearing, the Plaintiffs struggled to produce more than of couple of witnesses, who were quickly dismissed, not least because “most of their hired ones [had] been previously convicted and indicted for perjury at the Old Bailey!

A remarkable case, July 1780

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0004971/17800717/003/0001 Coventry Standard - Monday 17 July 1780

Also appearing in e.g. Norfolk Chronicle - Saturday 15 July 1780

On Wednesday last, at Guildhall, came on to be tried before Earl Mansfield, and a Special Jury, the long-depending and remarkable cause between Mess. John and Benjamin Cooper, Plaintiffs, and Robert Crowe, Esq. Defendant. It was an issue directed by the Court of Chancery, to try the validity of a Commission of Bankruptcy, issued by the Plaintiffs as petitioning Creditors against the Defendant, and John Parker, Esq. The points in issue were, “Whether the Defendant, and the said Mr. Parker, were in trade or partnership;” and it appeared, in the clearest manner, that they were private Gentlemen, never concerned in any business, and that the Commission was taken out in order to fix their estates, with the debts of one David Tyrie, to the amount of 20,000l. the pretended partner in this fraudulent Commission. In the course of the evidence it came out, that Tyrie, in combination with the supporters of the Commission, had procured two sets of false witnesses, one set to get the Commission awarded, and the other to procure a verdict against Mr. Crowe, when its validity was tried in the Court of Common Pleas, on the 25th of June, 1779. This last set of hired witnesses, called, “The Family Compact,” attracted the particular-notice of the Court, from the very extraordinary circumstances that marked it, viz. That Michael Green, one of those Family Men, and a material witness for the Plaintiffs on the trial in the Court of Common Pleas, having sworn himself an Ipswich Cornfactor, who had bought and sold corn, tin, copper, and pigs, for Mr. Crowe and Mr. Parker, was dressed up for the purpose, with a suitable apparel, such as boots, &c &c. and that those boots were bought for him, and specifically charged in a Tavern bill, where he and the rest of his gang dined on the day of trial, and that this bill was paid by the Plaintiff’s Attorney. It also came out, that another of those hired witnesses wanted shoes to appear in, and a pair of new shoes was bought for him, and paid for in the same manner. The Plaintiffs produced but two witnesses to support their case, (most of their hired ones having been previously convicted and indicted for perjury at the Old Bailey;) the first on his own testimony and letter, was, by Lord Mansfield, totally set aside; and the other on his cross examination, having, in the most clear and express terms, proved the falacy of the Commission, his Lordship without requiring the Defendant to go into his case, or to call a single witness, recommended to the Jury to give a verdict for him; and the instantly, without going going out of Court, accordingly found against the Commission. The verdict was received with the warmest approbation of the Court, and a respectable audience; and by it a conspiracy of singular fraud and villainy was exposed and defeated. The Counsel for the Plaintiffs were, Serjeant Davy, Mr, Dunning, and Mr. Baldwin; for the Defendants, the Attorney-General, Mr, Lee, and Mr. Sylvester.

At this point, Crowe and Parker appear to have extricated themselves from any resposibility for Tyrie’s debts, debts they had perhaps helped to increase by virtue of the earlier mortgage agreement in which Crowe’s mortgaged property stood as collateral against loans made to Tyrie.

The year turned. And in April, 1781, and even though Crowe had paid the assignees 2000l. with regards to the outstanding mrotgage, he was still in considerable debt to them (by 1788, this was to the tune of 14,200l., on mortgage of 12,000l.).

In the summer, another court case came around. This time, it was Robert Crowe who was the plaintiff, raising the stakes and attempting to make a case against the assignees — “Mr. Halliday, the Banker; Mr. Cooper, the Builder; and Mr. Daniel, their Solicitor” — for “maliciously suing out and prosecuting a Commission of Bankruptcy against the Plaintiff as a joint Trader with Mess. Parker and Tyrie”. Parker also made a similar complaint independently.

But they were pushing their luck too far, because evidence presented during tha case made it clear that Crowe, Parker and Tyrie had been in an active business partnership with each other, and were, jointly, and considerably, indebted to the defendants.

In both cases, the Jury for the defendants, who were found to have behaved honourably and appropriately. Unlike the plaintiffs.

A Special Jury at Guildhall, London, August 1781

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000189/17810802/002/0001 Thursday 02 (09) August 1781

Saturday came on to be tried before Lord Mansfield and a Special Jury at Guildhall, London, a Cause wherein Robert Crowe was Plaintiff, and Mess. Halliday, Daniel, and Cooper Defendants. The Action was brought for maliciously suing out and prosecuting a Commission of Bankruptcy against the Plaintiff as a joint Trader with Mess. Parker and Tyrie, when it appeared fully in Evidence, that Mess. Crowe, Parker and Tyrie, were jointly concerned in carrying on various Trades and Merchandizes; that they were credited as Co partners by several of the Witnesses, & were indebted in a very considerable Sum of Money to the Defendants, who had consulted a Barrister on the Case. In the Management of the whole Affair it plainly appeared that the Defendants had acted with great Honour and Propriety, and were well warranted in their several Proceedings to render themselves and many other injured Creditors Justice. After a very candid and full Examination, the Case being impartially left to the Jury, a Verdict was immediately and most unanimously found for the Defendants, to the entire Satisfaction of the Court, and a very numerous Audience. Attorney for the Plaintiff, Mr. J. Vernon, junior, Lincoln’s Inn; Counsel, the Attorney-General, with Mess. Howarth, Lee, Silvester, and Hunter. Attorney for Defendants, Mr. John Reynolds, Adelphi; Counsel, Mess. Dunning, Davenport, Peckham, Baldwin, and Stackpoole.

This was a Cause of very great importance, in which the Principles and Conduct of the Plaintiff were placed in their Proper Colours, and the Character and Honour of the Defendants confirmed by a most respectable Jury. The like Action brought by Parker shared a similar Fate.

So what evidence had incriminated the three men?

To begin with, and to give a further sense of the dubious character of the business partners in addition to the recruitiment of perjurer Michael Green in the original bankruptcy case, Crowe’s own solicitor, Mr. Vernon, under cross-examiniation, was forced to disclose some of their rather dubious business practices.

On one occasion, in a plan devised by Crowe, “they had sent a Ship, called the Mary, commanded by a Captain Snelling to Leghorn [Livorno, on the North-West coast of Italy, in Tuscany, not far from Pisa], from whence she returned to England with the Manufactures of that Country, to the Value of about 1,400l.”

Crowe had also written to a certain Mr. Vowell, as well as referencing him another letter, who we might recall to the man Tyrie worked for when he first moved to London.

As was customary, and to ensure they didn’t lose everything if the ship was lost, they insured the goods. For 8000l.

It was intended as a simple insurance scam. The Captain was encouraged to land the goods in Cornwall, and then put back out to sea and sink the ship. In the event, “through Fear”, the Captain apparently declined to do so.

As to demonstrating the active business partnership between the men, it was evidence of Crowe’s own correspondence that was to damn the, not least in one example, to Tyrie, in which he commented on the situation with LLoyds with respect to the insurance policy regarding the Mary.

However, all was not, apparently, lost. For even though the Jury had instantly found a verdict against Crowe, and in favour of the assignees, Crowe and Parker had also made charges against Tyrie. And in that case, the jury had found in their favour and given a verdict against Tyrie to the amount of 5000l. Although we might imagine that that was something that the three partners would manage between them to their mutual benefit.

A remarkable trial, August 1781

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000817/17810813/005/0002?browse=true Hibernian Journal; or, Chronicle of Liberty - Monday 13 August 1781

The Account given in some of the Morning Papers, of the remarkable Trial that came on last Saturday in the King’s-Bench, Guildhall, before Lord Mansfield, and a Special Jury, not being explicit enough to give the Public a perfect Idea of that curious Business, a Correspondent has sent us the following real State of it, as taken from the Evidence.—In September, 1778, a Commission of Bankruptcy was issued out against Robert Crowe, John Parker, and David Tyrie, (Names well known at Westminster Hall, and other Courts of Justice) as being joint Traders, and Partners in a Distillery in Compton street, Clerkenwell, and other trading Business, which was afterwards discovered to be as fair in its Nature, as we hope it is uncommon in its Practice.

Shortly after the issuing out of this Commission, Messrs. Crowe and Parker petitioned the Lord Chancellor to supersede it, upon the Ground that they were not Partners with Mr. Tyrie.—The Chancellor, to try the Merits of this Question, directed an Action to be brought between the Bankrupts and Assignees, which was tried before the late Lord Chief Justice De Grey, and a Verdict given for the Assignees; but on this Trial a Manoeuvre was practised, which was never heard of before, and we hope never will again. The Assignees who had sufficient Evidence to support the Commission, in Letters written by the Bankrupts themselves, particularly Crowe, yet their Solicitor was prevailed upon by Tyrie to examine one Green and two others by Way of strengthening their Case. It afterwards appeared, that this Evidence was a gross Scene of Perjury, for which Green was indicted, and pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to the Indictment, and was prevailed upon, by a Promise of Pardon, and a large Reward, to charge the Assignees and the Solicitor with having suborned him. The Business thus cooked, Messrs. Crowe and Parker petition the Chancellor a second Time for a new Trial, upon the Ground of this Perjury; the Chancellor of Course directed an Issue; and the good Evidence in Support of the Commission being thus artfully contaminated, a Verdict went for Mr. Crowe, and thereupon the Commission was superseded.

Upon this Messrs. Crowe and Parker bring their separate Actions for Damages against the Assignees (namely, Mr. Halliday, the Banker; Mr. Cooper, the Builder; and Mr. Daniel, their Solicitor); this is the Action that was tried last Saturday, wherein the Designs and Conduct of the Plaintiffs appeared in their proper Colours. As to the perjured Evidence on the former Trial, there could not be one thinking Person among the numerous Audience in Court insensible of the Source from whence that Scene of Wickedness sprung, with its Views and Motives, which Lord Mansfield well expressed, by calling it a Plot within a Plot. It was likewise wrung out on the Cross-examination of Mr. Vowell, one of the Plaintiff’s own Witnesses, that they had sent a Ship, called the Mary, commanded by a Captain Snelling to Leghorn, from whence she returned to England with the Manufactures of that Country, to the Value of about 1,400l. but which the Plaintiffs, industriously got insured for 8000l. That on the Arrival of the Ship, they run those Goods into Cornwall, and then wanted the Captain to put back to Sea and sink the Ship, which he, through Fear, declined to do. This Witness further swore, he understood that this Scheme was planned by the Plaintiff Crowe.

As to the trading of this worthy Company, and that they knew they were liable to the Operation of the Bankrupt Laws, the following Extracts from Letters read as Evidence, and written by the Plaintiff Crowe, will give a sufficient Conviction of that, independent of any other Evidence, though a great Deal could be adduced.

Crowe, in one of his Letters, says, “As for thinking of getting any more done at Lloyd’s on the Mary, it is ridiculous for Vowell has just been with me, and says that 15 per Cent. had been offered on her, without Effect, by some of the Underwriters on his Policy, to hedge themselves off, and that Bruce, his Broker in that Business, told him they began to look on the Whole as an intended take-in.”
(Signed) ROBERT CROWE.
And directed to Tyrie.

In another Letter directed to Mr. Henry Papps, one of his confidential Secretaries he says, “My dear Friend, I did intend this Night to have fully and minutely answered your three last Letters, but am obliged, from the well-founded Apprehensions, to sleep out of my Lodgings to Night where your Letters are; and as I do not chuse to go for them, or entrust a Servant with such confidential Instruments, I must defer this full and minute Answer to Saturday’s Post. The Delay of Snelling stabs me with the most pointed Anxiety; by God his Insanity and Prize-hunting will undo us. I am ruffled in my Spirits. Adieu,

And be assured I am,
Your’s unalterably,
(Signed) ROBERT CROWE.”

In another Letter he says, “Mr George Papps, by his Deceptions and false Estimates, has robbed us of a heavy Sum in Compton street, and I think we are mad if we don’t get home on his Friends in Lombard-street. (Signed) ROBERT CROWE.”
And dated Paris, 10th of May 1778

In another Letter to Mr. Vowell, he says, “My dear Sir, Fenton will not hear of any Thing but a Bill at two Months; and as he is a cross hatty old Fellow, I recommend taking him off from the Set that is acting against Tyrie as soon as possible. It is not worth the Hazard of a Moment to keep Things of this Sort unsettled, when a Strike might follow from it, at this critical Period that would involve us in the Loss of Thousands and other fatal Inconveniencies, besides a premature Commission, and in adverse Hands, before the various Matters are digested and prepared for a Guildhall Scrutiny, would be an Event that no human Wit could get over. If you concur in this Sentiment, please to accept the enclosed Bill which I will send the Fellow to put an End to this Enmity.
Your’s sincerely, ROBERT CROWE.”
Commons Coffee-house Paul’s Church yard 10 Clock.

Upon this the Jury instantly, and without going out of Court found a Verdict for the Defendants Mess. Halliday Cooper and Daniel. As to Mr. Tyrie whom Messrs. Crowe and Parker affected to make a Defendant, they gave a Verdict against him for 5000l. which it is imagined he and Messrs. Crowe and Parker will have no great Difficulty in settling, to each others Satisfaction.

The Writer of this refers to every one who was in Court for his Veracity and Moderation in his Statement of the Facts; and as to the foregoing Extracts of Letters the Originals are in the Hands of Mr. Reynolds of the Agency; where they and many others to the same Effect, may be seen by anyone willing to take that trouble.

Two Short-hand Writers having taken down the Trial in Court, it is hoped it will be published for a Safeguard and Caution to the Public at large, particularly the commercial World.

Attorney for the Plaintiff, Mr Vernon, jun.

Counsel, the Attorney General, Mess. Lee, Howarth, Sylvefter, and Hunter.

Attorney for the Defendants, Halliday, Cooper, and Daniel, the above Mr. Reynolds.

Counsel, Mess. Dunning, Davenport, Peckham, Baldwin, and Stackpoole.

But the story doesn’t quite finish there. There was still the matter of the house, and the “double mortgage” that Crowe appears to have raised on it.

On the 27th of February, 1782, Robert Crowe had filed a cross-bill against the assignees, arguing that the mortgage and assignment to them should be set aside for fraud. This was presumably arguing against Tyrie’s behaviour, and the ruling Parker and Crowe had received against him, rather than Crowe’s own fraud, not only of mortgaging a property he was only on a life tenant of, but doing so twice. But seeing how Crowe acted later, it might be Crowe’s own fraud he was referring to…

From a case filed by a certain Mr. Thomas Crowe, (presumably some relation), we learn a little more about what happened next.

On the 1st of June, 1786, William and Anne Putland obtained a decree for the sale of the mortgaged lands (that is, a foreclosure on the mortgage), which the assignees were unaware of. A successful bid of 1800l. was submitted on 14th June, 1787, for sale of the lands to Edward Carroll, attorney for Thomas and Robert Crowe. The assignees, presumably now alerted to the sale, offered 1950l. for the lands, by way of a trustee, on the 14th of November, 1787. Presumably, they were wary of losing any security they had in the loan they had made previously against the property. Just under a week later, on 19th November, Edward Carroll obtained an order to set aside that last bid. Two weeks after that, on 5th December, 1787, the assignees applied to have Carroll’s order set aside, which it was, and the sale process was opened again.

The following week, 12th December, 1787, Edward Carroll and Thomas Crowe, challenged the ruling of 5th December, claiming that Thomas Crowe had a prior claim to the property. But the court had ruled, and ordered that the lands be put up for sale again. On 27th February, 1788, Thomas Crowe tried to have the ruling from 12th December, 1787, reopening the sale, set aside, on the basis that he had since bought out the Putland’s mortgage fron them and therefore acquired all their rights over the property, including any right to insist on foreclosure. But the Court of Exchequer declined to rule again, and so the sale was reopened on 6th March, 1788.

Thomas Crowe then argued that the ruling of 27th February, 1788, was incorrect, and he would suffer by it. Having taken over the Putland’s mortgage, he now had all the rights of ownership that they had previously had. Not only that, but the mortgage debt was now a part of his overall debt, and couldn’t be separated out. And to top it all, the assignees shouldn’t be allowed to force him (as owner) to put up the lands for sale, particularly when their claim was also being challenged elswhere (specifically, in an appeal made against them by Robert Crowe, which was to be the next to be heard).

The respondents (which is to say, the assignees), argued that Thomas Crowe wasn’t a party to the original agreement, and thus should have no say in the matter. Furthermore, if he had acquired the assignment of the decree made in favour of the Putland’s on 12th Decembers, 1787, after the 12th of the December, he shouldn’t acquire more rights than the Putland’s had had in the matter. The transfer of the assignment was moot anyway, because it seemed as if he was colluding with Robert Crowe and hadn’t paid any consideration for the mortgage. (Presumably, they thought Robert Crowe had simply settled the matter?) Theu then argued the collusion was obvious, because Thomas Crowe was doing all he could to prevent the sale; whereas if he really was a creditor, he would be looking for it to be sold off so he could have his debt repaid. By putting off the sale, he was delaying the settlement of the debts owing to him, and so obviously wasn’t acting on his own behalf. Instead, he was acting on behalf of Robert Crowe to tried to prevent the payment of the 14,200l. owing to the assignees.

It then appeared that Thomas Crowe had tried to withdraw the appeal, but as no-one had appeared to press the matter the court found against him, and also charged him 100l. costs for his trouble.

Set aside the mortgage due to fraud, April 1788

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tOdLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA51

Reports of Cases Upon Appeals and Writs of Error in the High Court of Parliament, Volume II, 1795

pp. 50-57

Case 23

THOMAS CROWE Esq. Appellant

JOHN HALLIDAY, Simon Halliday, Sir John Dantze, William Mackworth Praed, Joseph Saunders, and Daniel Hamilton Respondents

April 2d. 1788

…

On the 27th of February, 1782, Robert Crowe filed a cross-bill, praying that the mortgage and assignment to the respondents might be set aside for fraud:— The respondents answered this bill, and having obtained liberty to proceed on the original cause,—on the 16th of July, 1787, applied to the Court of Exchequer, that a receiver might be appointed, pursuant to the prayer of the bill:—A conditional order was obtained, and on the 27th of February, 1788, Robert Crowe shewed cause against the order, but the cause shewn was disallowed, and the order made absolute.

On the 8th of March 1780, Anne Evans and William Putland filed a bill in the Exchequer, for the foreclosure of a mortgage of the same premises, alleged to have been executed to Anne, by Robert Crowe, on the first of November, 1776.—The respondents were not made parties to this bill, under which a decree was obtained for a sale of the lands on the 1st of June 1786,—they were accordingly sold on the 14th of June, 1787, for 1800l. to Edward Carroll, who was attorney for Robert Crowe, and also for the appellant.—The respondents on the 14th of November, 1787, by a trustee bid 1950l. for the lands; and on the 19th of the same month, Edward Carroll obtained an order to set aside this last bidding:—On the 5th of December in the same year, the respondents applied to set aside the order of the 19th of November, and to establish the bidding of their trustee, or that the lands might be set up again.—This application was made as well in the cause instituted by respondents against R. Crowe, as in the cause instituted by Putland and wife; and an order was granted unless cause.

On the 12th of December, 1787, Edward Carroll, and also the appellant, Thomas Crowe, as a third person, who was no party in Putland’s cause, shewed cause against the order of the 5th of December, stating that the appellant was an incumbrancer prior to the respondents.—The Court ordered the lands to be set up again, and they were advertised to be sold on the 6th of March, 1788, before which day, to wit, on the 27th of February, 1788, the appellant caused application to be made, as a third person, to set aside the order of the 12th of December, 1787, and to restrain the proper officer from selling the lands, he, the appellant, having paid off the entire of Putland’s mortgage, obtained an assignment thereof, and also of the decree of foreclosure; but the Court of Exchequer were pleased to permit the order of the 12th of December to stand, by declining to make any rule upon the application made to them.

The appellant conceiving that the order of the 27th of February, 1788, was erroneous, in not setting aside the order of the 12th of December, 1787, and that he was much injured thereby, appealed therefrom, and fought to have it reversed, varied, or altered. First, The appellant having become the assignee of William Putland, and Anne his wife, who were the original owners of the mortgage, was thereby invested with every right of ownership, and every discretionary power which William Putland and Anne his wife had and possessed with respect to the mortgage and decree thereon, prior to their assignment of same to him.

Secondly, The appellant’s other debts, which affected the lands, were in consequence of the assignment connected with the mortgage-debt assigned to him, and all demands thereby became in the hands of the appellant, altogether one consolidated debt, not liable to be divided or separated, but at the option of the appellant.

Thirdly, The appellant, thus circumstanced, ought not to be compellable against his consent in a summary way, by motion, to go on to a sale of the lands comprised in his assigned mortgage and decree, by the respondents, who were no parties in the cause in which the decree was had, whose demand was in a state of litigation, and impeached as fraudulent.

For the respondents it was said that the order ought to be affirmed with costs. First, Because the appellant ought not to be permitted to appeal against the order, as a third person intervening, pending Putland’s cause, to which the appellant was no party.

Secondly, Because it appears, that if the appellant had acquired any assignment of Putland’s decree, or of any other incumbrance affecting the mortgaged premises, the same was acquired subsequent to the order of the 12th of December, 1787, and consequently he ought not, coming in pendente lite, to stand in a more advantageous situation than the said William Putland, or those other persons under whom (if any) the appellant claimed, would have done.

Thirdly, Because though the appellant by his petition of appeal grounds his right and cause of appeal upon the assignment of the decree obtained by William Putland and wife, and upon that only, he did not lay before the Court any matter to shew that he had any interest therein, or paid any consideration for such assignment. Fourthly, Because, from the general complexion of the appellant’s case, it appears manifestly that there is a collusion between him and Robert Crowe, the mortgagor, to defeat the respondents in the recovery of their demands.

And fifthly, This collusion is obvious, by the appellant’s opposition to the sale of the mortgaged premises, inasmuch as by such sale he must, if a real and prior creditor, be satisfied the sum due to him, so far as the money to arise by such sale shall turn out sufficient for that purpose; whereas, by opposing the sale, he postpones the payment of his demand, though his having voluntarily taken an assignment or assignments of the incumbrance or incumbrances now set up by him, is evidence that he conceived the premises were at all events a sufficient fund for satisfaction of all the incumbrances claimed by him; and consequently he cannot be presumed, from this conduct, to have acted for himself; but, on the contrary, as an instrument and trustee for Robert Crowe, to retard and defeat the respondents, who are fair creditors for 14,200l. and whose demands must give precedence to the appellant’s, should he be able to establish the reality and priority of his incumbrances; but which may be lost by the death of Robert Crowe, should the same happen pending the present litigation.

It was ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the appeal be dismissed, and the order complained of affirmed.—And it was further ordered that the appellant should pay to the respondents 100l. for their costs in respect to the faid appeal.

Note, A petition had been presented on the part of the appellant, praying that he might be permitted to withdraw his appeal, or that the hearing thereof might be adjourned:—this petition was rejected, and the cause was called on, but no counsel appearing for the appellant, the order was affirmed.—I have however inferred the reasons which were annexed to the printed cases, as the arguments of counsel, though no counsel were heard.

At the same sitting, Robert Crowe had also filed a bill, challenging the appointment of receiver in February, 1788, to collect income from the mortgaged estate.

The receiver had been appointed in response to a Court of Exchequer ruling on 16th July, 1787, which in turn formed the response of the assigness to Robert Crowe’s appeal to set aside the mortgage on grounds of fraud back in Februuary 1782. Crowe had promptly challenged the appointment of the receivers on 27th February, 1887, but was unsuccessful. And then, it seems, he appealed again.

In a beautiful twist, Crowe’s case partly relied on the respondents’ (that is, the original mortgage assignees) own argument, that the mortgage was invalid on the grounds that Crowe was only a tenant for life. Crowe pointed out that the appointment of the receiever could only be made if the mortgage was a lawful one. Which it wasn’t. And therefore not only did he not owe the assignees anything, neither did they have any claim to any income from it, and hence there was no justification for appointing a receiver.

But the court disagreed. The sum that Crowe owed the assignees on the property was considerable, and even though there were other creditors with a claim over Crowe, they were happy for the assignees to have the prior claim. So the order to appoint the receivers was to stand, not least to protect the interests of all the creditors, and in addition Crowe would pay 100l. in costs.

By lease and release, April 1788

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tOdLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA58

Reports of Cases Upon Appeals and Writs of Error in the High Court of Parliament, Volume II, 1795

pp. 58-59

Case 24

*In this case the Court of Exchequer appointed a receiver to receive rents of lands in mortgage, to foreclose which a bill had been filed. That order affirmed. *

ROBERT CROWE, Esq. Appellant.

JOHN HALLIDAY, Simon Halliday, Sir John Dantze, Bart., William Mackworth Pread, Joseph Saunders, and Daniel Hamilton Respondts.

April 2d, 1788.

ROBERT CROWE, the defendant in the foreclosure cause, as stated in the preceding case, brought this appeal from the order of the Court of Exchequer, bearing date the 27th of February, 1788, by which a receiver was appointed to receive the rents and profits of the lands in the pleadings mentioned.

It was contended that the order ought to be reversed, varied, or altered, for that a receiver can only be appointed on some admission in the answer of a mortgagor, where the mortgage is subsisting, and an arrear of interest due; but in this cause the answer denied the legality and justice of the mortgage, and impeached the same in the most pointed and unqualified terms, and denied that any thing was due thereon to the plaintiff.

For the respondents it was said, that the appeal was merely for delay, and that the order ought to be affirmed with costs, because it was manifest that after giving credit to the appellant for the sum of 2000l. paid to the respondents in the month of April, 1781, the sum of 14,200l. remained due to them upon the foot of the mortgage for 12,000l., and that even if the appellant was not tenant for life of the mortgaged premises, they are but a scanty security for the respondents’ demand alone; but appearing that the appellant is bare tenant for life, and that there are considerable incumbrances claimed by other creditors, prior to those of the respondents, and it not appearing that such prior creditors complain of the order, and that so considerable a sum is due, it is equitable and just, that for the preservation of the fund, and for the safety of all interested parties, that a receiver should be appointed, and the order affirmed.

It was ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the appeal be dismissed, and the order therein complained of affirmed, and that the appellant should pay 100l. costs.

And there the tale of Tyrie’s bankruptcy case, and his partnership with Parker and Crowe, comes to an end.