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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.15 (2026)

Partners; joint and severable liability.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT


Act 72 of 1917


449.15 Partners; joint and severable liability.

Sec. 15.

    (Nature of partner's liability). Except as otherwise provided by section 46, all partners are liable for both of the following:

    (a) Jointly and severally for everything chargeable to the partnership under sections 13 and 14.

    (b) Jointly for all other debts and obligations of the partnership. However, a partner may enter into a separate obligation to perform a partnership contract.

History: 1917, Act 72, Eff. Aug. 10, 1917 ;-- CL 1929, 9855 ;-- CL 1948, 449.15 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 323, Imd. Eff. Oct. 12, 1994

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1980–2018 · leading case: Scarff Bros., Inc. v. Bischer Farms, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Mich. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Scarff Bros., Inc. v. Bischer Farms, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 2× “Based on the definition of partnership, that liability accrues to the partners of Bischer Farms Partnership, which includes the following named defendants: Melvin J.”
Old Orchard Inv. Co. v. A.D.I. Distributors, Inc. (In Re Old Orchard Inv. Co.), 31 B.R. 599 (W.D. Mich. 1983). “§ 449.15. See also 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 723.”
Yenglin v. Mazur, 328 N.W.2d 624 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “Plaintiffs complaint alleges a breach of contract with respect to the partnership and claims that the remaining defendants are liable by virtue of their status as partners.”
Sheldon Co. Profit Sharing Plan & Trust v. Smith, 828 F. Supp. 1262 (W.D. Mich. 1993). “Restatement (Second) of Agency § 140. Partners are jointly and severally liable for everything chargeable to the partnership as a result of another partner’s misdeeds in the ordinary course of business of partnership.”
Stroebel-Polasky Co. v. Slachta, 308 N.W.2d 273 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “Instead, he transferred his interest in the partnership as represented by the property. Defendants’ security interest in the property is no better than Dominguez’ interest in the partnership itself, which in turn is inferior to that of partnership creditors.”
Silverman v. Niswonger, 761 F. Supp. 464 (E.D. Mich. 1991). “14] (Callaghan 1990). In turn, the partners are jointly and severally liable for everything chargeable to the partnership as a result of a partner’s misdeeds in the ordinary course of business of the partnership.”
Commonwealth Capital Inv. Corp. v. McElmurry, 302 N.W.2d 222 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “36(1) provides that the dissolution of the partnership does not discharge the existing liability of any partner.”
Alfreda Moses v. Richard Nethers (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “Having read the complaint, the attorney also noted in his affidavit that 5.”
Alfreda Moses v. Richard Nethers (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “MCL 449.15, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for $53,591.”
Alfreda Moses v. Richard Nethers (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “Having read the complaint, the attorney also noted in his affidavit that 5.”
Alfreda Moses v. Richard Nethers (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “MCL 449.15, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for $53,591.”
Thomas L Thesier v. T B S K Ltd. P'ship (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “13; MCL 449.15. Given this, we find that defendant is an aggrieved party for purposes of this appeal.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.15(a) — 2 cases
Thomas L Thesier v. T B S K Ltd. P'ship (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “13; MCL 449.15. Given this, we find that defendant is an aggrieved party for purposes of this appeal.”
Thomas L Thesier v. T B S K Ltd. P'ship (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.15(b) — 4 cases
Alfreda Moses v. Richard Nethers (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Having read the complaint, the attorney also noted in his affidavit that 5.”
Alfreda Moses v. Richard Nethers (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Having read the complaint, the attorney also noted in his affidavit that 5.”
Bruce Klaasen v. Dennis Jonker (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Bruce Klaasen v. Dennis Jonker (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
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.