Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.26 (2026)

Partner; interest in partnership as personal property.

✓ 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

449.26 Partner; interest in partnership as personal property.

Sec. 26.

(Nature of partner's interest in the partnership).

A partner's interest in the partnership is his share of the profits and surplus, and the same is personal property.

History: 1917, Act 72, Eff. Aug. 10, 1917 ;-- CL 1929, 9866 ;-- CL 1948, 449.26

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1956–2019 · leading case: Off. Unsecured Creditors' Comm. v. N. Trust Co. (In Re Ellingsen MacLean Oil Co.), 98 B.R. 284 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Off. Unsecured Creditors' Comm. v. N. Trust Co. (In Re Ellingsen MacLean Oil Co.), 98 B.R. 284 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1989). · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp.Laws § 449.26 (1967) (Mich.Stat.”

Backowski v. Solecki, 316 N.W.2d 434 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “” MCL 449.26; MSA 20.26. Unlike a partner’s right in specific property, a partner’s interest in the partnership is assignable.”

Wismer & Becker Contracting Engineers v. Dep't of Treasury, 382 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “See § 26 of the Uniform Partnership Act, MCL 449.26; MSA 20.26; 60 Am Jur 2d, Partnership, § 101, p 29.”

Ordon v. Johnson, 77 N.W.2d 377 (Mich. 1956). “CL 1948, § 449.26 (Stat Ann § 20.26). The question presented is whether such a contract, resting wholly in parol, is void under the specific language of the statute above cited, notwithstanding that the acts of the parties done in recognition of their agreement constituted, .”

Kojaian Mgmt. Corp & Affiliates v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “MCL 449.26. Therefore, one who acquires an interest in a partnership obtains an interest in the partnership’s tangible assets.”

Jones v. Simmons, 209 N.W.2d 840 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “MCLA 449.26; MSA 20.26. Thus, since the premiums on the policies were paid from money which was already identified by the partners as "profit”, the premiums were therefore paid from the personal property of the partners, and *659 the policy is therefore not an asset of the…”

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.