COPARTNERSHIPS
Act 164 of 1913
449.101 Copartnerships; certificate required, filing, contents.
Sec. 1.
No 2 or more persons shall hereafter be engaged in carrying on any business as copartners unless such persons shall first make and file with the county clerk of the county in which such copartnership business is or shall be located, a certificate in writing, to be signed by each, and verified by the affidavit of 1 of the members of said copartnership, setting forth the full name of each and every person composing the said copartnership, and the residence of each, the name and style of the firm, and the length of time for which it is to continue, if limited by the partnership contract, and also the locality of their place of business; which certificate shall be kept in the office of the said county clerk, as a public document, and open to the inspection of any person: Provided, That any copartnership that has filed the certificate required by Act No. 101 of the Public Acts of 1907, shall not be required to file the certificate herein provided for.
History: 1913, Act 164, Eff. Aug. 14, 1913 ;-- CL 1915, 6354 ;-- CL 1929, 9929 ;-- CL 1948, 449.101
Compiler's Notes:
For provisions of Act 101 of 1907, referred to in this section, see MCL 445.1 et seq.
Notes of Decisions
Morris Cruises v. Irwin Yacht & Marine Corp., 478 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “After the trial court's ruling, but before an order of dismissal was entered, the plaintiffs filed the necessary certificate of copartnership with the Antrim County Clerk, stating on the face of the certificate that "George Morris Cruises is not conducting *412 or carrying on…”
Cmty. Assocs. v. Meridian Charter Twp., 314 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Respondent first claims that petitioner’s noncompliance with statutory partnership filing requirements (MCL 449.101; MSA 20.111) prohibits it from petitioning the Tax Tribunal for review of its property tax assessments.”
Birch Run Nursery v. Jemal, 216 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
“Birch Run Nursery failed to file a certificate of partnership as required by MCLA 449.101; MSA 20.111. Therefore, it is prohibited from maintaining any action in our courts.”
Bellware v. Wolffis, 397 N.W.2d 861 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “116(C)(5), arguing that plaintiff lacked the legal capacity to sue since no partnership certificate had been filed as required by MCL 449.101; MSA 20.111. Defendant’s motion was granted on June 7, 1983.”
Calkins v. Midland Funding NCC-2 Corp., 412 F. Supp. 2d 699 (W.D. Mich. 2006).
“Indeed, while attempting to determine whether the plaintiffs debt collection activity constituted “carrying on any business” within the meaning of the statutes at issue in that case, the Michigan court looked to similar language in other statutes: While neither MCL 449.101 et…”
Kramer v. Charlevoix Beach Hotel, 71 N.W.2d 226 (Mich. 1955).
· cites it 2× “However, CL 1948, § 449.101 (Stat Ann § 20.111), clearly states that a partnership is not required to file a certificate of partnership with the county clerk if a certificate of doing business under an assumed *718 name is filed with him.”
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.