Rowand v. Finney

Unknown CourtNovember 22, 1880Cited 15 times

Defendant WinWest Allegheny School District

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s): Gordon, Green, Mercur, Paxson, Sharswood, Sterrett, Trunkey
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: appeal
State: Pennsylvania

Related Laws

ADAView law details

Claim Types

Wrongful TerminationBreach of Contract

Outcome

The court affirmed the School Board's suspension of eleven teachers due to declining enrollment, finding that post-suspension hearings satisfied due process and that the Board properly calculated seniority and the number of necessary suspensions.

Excerpt

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1880, No. 134. This was’ an action in assumpsit brought by John A. Finney and Ada M. Finney, his wife, for use of fhe said Ada M. Finney, against A. H. Rowand, Jr., to recover the sum of $1965, with interest from August 3d 1875. A. H. Rowand, Jr., the defendant below, by warrantee deed dated August 3d 1875, conveyed to Ada M. Finney certain property in the borough of Verona, county of Allegheny, for the consideration of $2700. He received $1200 cash and a purchase-money mortgage with bond and notes of John A. and Ada M. Finney for $1500, payable in two instalments of $750 each, in four and six months respectively. The four months’ note he endorsed to the Franklin Savings Bank, of Allegheny. The six months’ note was endorsed to the Diamond National Bank, of Pittsburgh. When the first note matured, it was protested for non-payment, and a few days thereafter Finney paid one-half of the amount, and a new note for the other one-half, with interest added, was made by Finney and wife to Rowand’s order, and by him was endorsed to the Franklin Savings bank as before. This second note was also protested for non-payment at maturity. The six months’ note held by the Diamond National Bank was not paid and was protested at maturity. No further payments were made on these notes, and a scire facias was issued on the mortgage to No. 488, April Term 1876, marked A. H. Rowand, for use of the Diamond National Bank and George R. Riddle, trustee of the Franklin Savings Bank, v. Ada M. Finney and John A. Finney, her husband. Finney and wife appeared and made defence to this action, and on the trial there was a verdict against them for $848.92. Judgment was entered on the verdict and the property was sold on a levari facias, following the judgment, to the Diamond National Bank. After these ‘proceedings and sale, the present action was brought, wherein Finney and Avife claimed that

What This Ruling Means

**This is not an employment law case that would affect workers.** This 1880 case, Rowand v. Finney, was actually a real estate dispute, not a workplace matter. Here's what happened: **What the dispute was about:** A.H. Rowand Jr. sold property in Verona, Pennsylvania to John and Ada Finney in 1875. The Finneys agreed to pay for the property over time through promissory notes (essentially IOUs), and Rowand held a mortgage on the property as security. When the Finneys failed to make their payments, Rowand took legal action to collect the debt and foreclose on the mortgage. **What the court decided:** The court ruled in favor of Rowand. The Finneys owed $848.92, and the property was sold through foreclosure to satisfy this debt. **Why this doesn't matter for workers:** This case involved a private real estate transaction between individuals, not an employment relationship. It dealt with property sales, mortgages, and contract payments—not wages, working conditions, or employee rights. Workers looking for guidance on employment law should focus on cases that specifically address workplace issues like discrimination, wage disputes, or wrongful termination.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wrongful Termination cases Breach of Contract cases

Similar Rulings

Con Ed v. NLRB

U.S. Supreme CourtDec 1938

Mixed Result

Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Supreme CourtFeb 1951

Republic Aviation Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Supreme CourtApr 1945

Plaintiff Win

James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab

9th CircuitNov 2000

Mixed Result

Read Full Opinion More West Allegheny School District Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.