Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 449 / Act 72 of 1917

Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.1

Uniform partnership act; short title.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT


Act 72 of 1917


449.1 Uniform partnership act; short title.

Sec. 1.

    (Name of act). This act may be cited as uniform partnership act.

History: 1917, Act 72, Eff. Aug. 10, 1917 ;-- CL 1929, 9841 ;-- CL 1948, 449.1

Compiler's Notes:

    The catchlines in parentheses following the act section numbers of this act were incorporated as part of the act when enacted.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1950–2024 · leading case: Kay Investment Co., LLC v. Brody Realty No. 1, LLC
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kay Investment Co., LLC v. Brody Realty No. 1, LLC (2007) michctapp · cites it 4× “We also agree with Brody Realty that the parties did not conduct the business in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA), MCL 449.1 et seq. See Byker, supra at 638-639 , 641 N.”
Wengel v. Wengel (2006) michctapp “3 All conveyances and devises of land made to two or more persons shall be construed to create a tenancy in common, and not a joint tenancy, unless expressly declared to be a joint tenancy; however, this rule does not apply to mortgages, nor to grants or devises made in *94…”
Urbain v. Beierling (2013) michctapp “1 Because the partnership could be dissolved by the express will of any partner pursuant to the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA), MCL 449.1 et seq., plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim fails as a matter of law, plaintiff has failed to present evidence showing that defendants…”
Byker v. Mannes (2002) mich “” Instead, the focus is on whether individuals intended to jointly carry on a business for profit within the meaning of the Michigan Uniform Partnership Act, MCL 449.1 et seq., regardless of whether they subjectively intended to form a partnership.”
Omnicom of Michigan v. Giannetti Investment Co. (1997) michctapp “The Uniform Partnership Act, MCL 449.1 et seq.; MSA 20.1 et seq., provides in pertinent part: Every partner is an agent of the partnership for the purpose of its business, and the act of every partner, including the execution in the partnership name of any instrument, for…”
Backowski v. Solecki (1982) michctapp “I Resolution of the dispute herein requires application of the Uniform Partnership Act, MCL 449.1 et seq.; MSA 20.1 et seq. Section 10 of the act would seem to govern the case at bar.”
Grosberg v. Michigan National Bank Oakland (1985) mich “See MCL 449.1 et seq.; MSA 20.1 et seq. 3 The Restatement of Agency, 2d, also recognizes another category *717 of authority, "inherent agency power,” defined as "the power of an agent which is derived not from authority, apparent authority or estoppel, but solely from the agency…”
Armoudlian v. Zadeh (1982) michctapp “This argument appears to be premised üpon the fact that the Uniform Partnership Act, MCL 449.1 et seq.; MSA 20.1 et seq., provides for court jurisdiction over partnership dissolution.”
Sheldon Co. Profit Sharing Plan and Trust v. Smith (1993) miwd “§ 449.1, et seq. (West 1989). This is clearly shown by the acknowledgement contained in the Investment Management Agreement of July 15, 1985, executed for DSV by Smith: Dolinka, Smith & VanNoord hereby acknowledges by execution and acceptance of this agreement, that acting as.”
Dolinka VanNoord and Co. v. Oppenheimer and Co. (1995) miwd “§ 449.1 et seq, for the intentional wrongful acts of its ex-partner, Smith.”
First Public Corp. v. Parfet (2003) mich “, Uniform Partnership Act, MCL 449.1 et seq. *108 IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, we vacate the “joint enterprise” portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”
Wiltse v. Schaeffer (1950) mich “Counsel in their briefs have called attention to various provisions of the uniform partnership act (CL 1948, § 449.1 et seq. [Stat Ann § 20.1 et seq.]).”
Show all 32 citing cases →
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.