History:
L. 1972, ch. 210, § 15; L. 1994, ch. 140, § 7; Repealed, L. 1998, ch. 93, § 76; July 1, 1999.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Referred to in action commenced prior to enactment; partnership liability for judgment against partner. McClintock v. McCall, 214 Kan. 764, 768, 522 P.2d 343.
2. Applied; both parties liable for obligations until partnership affairs wound up. Mildfelt v. Lair, 221 Kan. 557, 569, 561 P.2d 805.
3. Cited; former partner not liable for barred partnership debt acknowledged by another; laches. Daniels Trucking, Inc. v. Rogers, 7 Kan. App. 2d 407, 408, 409, 411, 643 P.2d 1108 (1982).
4. "Product line" theory of liability inapplicable where remedy against surviving partner of original installer of equipment still available. Stratton v. Garvey Internat'l, Inc., 9 Kan. App. 2d 254, 264, 676 P.2d 1290 (1984).
5. Withdrawing partner's continuing liability for partnership debts, effect of agreement discharging liability, dissolution of partnership examined. Belt v. Shepard, 15 Kan. App. 2d 448, 450, 808 P.2d 907 (1991).
6. Unnamed partners personal property may not be attached to satisfy judgment against partnership. Hoelting Enterprises v. Nelson, 23 Kan. App. 2d 228, 233, 929 P.2d 183 (1996).
Stratton v. Garvey Int'l, Inc., 676 P.2d 1290 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984). “” Thus, if the partnership is found to have been responsible for plaintiff s injury due to improper installation of the man-lift, plaintiff has a remedy. Plaintiff, however, argues that he should not be denied his action against Borton, Inc.”
Daniels Trucking, Inc. v. Rogers, 643 P.2d 1108 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3דAppellant argues that the dissolution of the partnership did not discharge the liability of either partner, and that either partner could convey partnership property in satisfaction of partnership debts.”
Gillespie v. Seymour, 876 P.2d 193 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “This court, citing K.S.A. 56-315, noted partners are jointly and severally liable for “everything chargeable to the partnership.”
Belt v. Shepard, 808 P.2d 907 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). “K.S.A. 56-315 provides: “All partners are liable jointly and severally for everything chargeable to the partnership; but any partner may enter into a separate obligation to perform a partnership contract.”
Hoelting Enter. v. Nelson, 929 P.2d 183 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “56-la253(b); K.S.A. 56-315(a). Thus, applying the rationale in Dayco gives effect to Kansas partnership statutes.”
Wells Fargo Bank Texas, N.A. v. Foulston Siefkin LLP, 348 F. Supp. 2d 772 (N.D. Tex. 2004). “K.S.A. § 56-315 (repealed 1999). 4 . This definition is identical to the definition contained in an earlier version of the same dictionary.”
— K.S.A. § 56-315(a) — 1 case
Hoelting Enter. v. Nelson, 929 P.2d 183 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “56-la253(b); K.S.A. 56-315(a). Thus, applying the rationale in Dayco gives effect to Kansas partnership statutes.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.