Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.106 (2026)

Violation of act; penalty; effect on validity and enforcement of contracts.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

COPARTNERSHIPS

Act 164 of 1913

449.106 Violation of act; penalty; effect on validity and enforcement of contracts.

Sec. 6.

Any 2 or more persons owning, carrying on or conducting or transacting business as aforesaid, who shall fail to comply with the provisions of this act, shall each be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than $10.00 nor more than $100.00 or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding 30 days or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court; and each day any person or persons shall violate any provisions of this act shall be deemed a separate offense: Provided, however, The fact that a penalty is provided herein for non-compliance with the provisions of this act shall not be construed to avoid contracts, but any copartnership failing to file the certificate or renewal certificate required by this act shall be prohibited from bringing any suit, action or proceeding in any of the courts of this state until after full compliance with the provisions of this act.

History: 1913, Act 164, Eff. Aug. 14, 1913 ;-- CL 1915, 6359 ;-- Am. 1919, Act 265, Eff. Aug. 14, 1919 ;-- CL 1929, 9934 ;-- CL 1948, 449.106 ;-- Am. 1955, Act 138, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1974–1991 · leading case: Morris Cruises v. Irwin Yacht & Marine Corp., 478 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Morris Cruises v. Irwin Yacht & Marine Corp., 478 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “Plaintiffs appeal as of right from an order granting the defendants' motion for summary disposition and dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice on the grounds that the action was barred by MCL 449.106; MSA 20.118. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for…”

Birch Run Nursery v. Jemal, 216 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “MCLA 449.106; MSA 20.118; Smith v Erla, 317 Mich 109 ; 26 NW2d 728 (1947).”

Cmty. Assocs. v. Meridian Charter Twp., 314 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “111) prohibits it from petitioning the Tax Tribunal for review of its property tax assessments. Any copartnership failing to comply with the statutory requirements is prohibited from "bringing any suit, action or proceeding in any of the courts of this state” until it has…”

Bellware v. Wolffis, 397 N.W.2d 861 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “MCL 449.106; MSA 20.118 (hereinafter referred to as § 6) renders noncompliance with § 1 a misdemeanor and also provides: .”

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.