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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.6 (2026)

Partnership; definition; effect of act as to prior and limited partnerships.

✓ 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


449.6 Partnership; definition; effect of act as to prior and limited partnerships.

Sec. 6.

    (Partnership defined).

    (1) A partnership is an association of 2 or more persons, which may consist of husband and wife, to carry on as co-owners a business for profit; any partnership heretofore established consisting of husband and wife only, formed since January 10, 1942 shall constitute a valid partnership.

    (2) But any association formed under any other statute of this state, or any statute adopted by authority, other than the authority of this state, is not a partnership under this act, unless such association would have been a partnership in this state prior to the adoption of this act; but this act shall apply to limited partnerships except in so far as the statutes relating to such partnerships are inconsistent herewith.

History: 1917, Act 72, Eff. Aug. 10, 1917 ;-- CL 1929, 9846 ;-- Am. 1941, Act 272, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;-- CL 1948, 449.6 ;-- Am. 1957, Act 59, Eff. Sept. 27, 1957

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1949–2025 · leading case: Byker v. Mannes, 641 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Byker v. Mannes, 641 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 14× “See MCLS and MCLA 449.6 (Historical Notes); 1929 CL 9841; 1948 CL 449.”
Kay Inv. Co., LLC v. Brody Realty No. 1, LLC, 731 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 12× “We hold that the record evidence compels the conclusion that the original parties to the agreement intended to and did in fact create a joint venture, with the sole purpose of developing and renting out a retail shopping center in Southgate. As noted, the original parties to the…”
Urbain v. Beierling, 835 N.W.2d 455 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “]” MCL 449.6. Pursuant to the UPA, “[t]he dissolution of a partnership is the change in the relation of the partners caused by any partner ceasing to be associated in the carrying on as distinguished from the winding up of the business.”
Holmes v. Kraus (In Re Kraus), 37 B.R. 126 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1984). “§ 449.6(1). This Court, therefore, holds that the May 22 agreement between the parties created a partnership.”
Varlesi v. Wayne State Univ., 909 F. Supp. 2d 827 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 2× “It was clearly not meant to denote a legal relationship with special duties, given that a legal partnership requires an intent "to carry on as co-owners a business for profit,” Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.6 (1), and no such intent has been shown here.”
First Pub. Corp. v. Parfet, 631 N.W.2d 785 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “Moore v DuBard, 318 Mich 578, 593-594 ; 29 NW2d 94 (1947); MCL 449.6(1). Plaintiffs’ reliance on Opdyke Investment Co v Norris Grain Co, 413 Mich 354 ; 320 NW2d 836 (1982), to argue that a factual issue was shown with regard to the existence of a “joint venture” or “partnership”…”
Paul v. U.S. Mut. Fin. Corp., 389 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “MCL 449.6; MSA 20.6. Defendant contends that the receipt of profits or losses is prima facie evidence of a partnership.”
Smith v. Smith (In Re Smith), 81 B.R. 888 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1988). · cites it 2× “Mich.Comp. Laws § 449.6 (1967) (Mich.Stat.”
City Fin. Co. v. Kloostra, 209 N.W.2d 498 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “The series of statutes enacted by our Legislature were succinctly summarized in Sierra v Minnear, 341 Mich 182, 186-187 (1954): " '[MCLA 449.6; MSA 20.6], permitting a husband and wife to be partners in business.”
United States v. Graham, 87 F. Supp. 237 (E.D. Mich. 1949). “Laws 1948, § 449.6, Mich.Stat.Ann. 20.6, effective Jan.”
Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Texas Co., 113 F. Supp. 514 (E.D. Mich. 1953). “Husband and Wife as Partners In the state of Michigan, prior to 1941, husband and wife could not be partners, but in 1941 the following act was passed: “A partnership is an association of 2 or more persons, which may include husband and wife, to carry on as co-owners a business…”
Scott Fowler v. Donald Keiper (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 8× “]” MCL 449.6(1). This statute also provides: (2) But any association formed under any other statute of this state, or any statute adopted by authority, other than the authority of this state, is not a partnership under this act, unless such association would have been a…”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.6(1) — 14 cases
Byker v. Mannes, 641 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. 2002). “See MCLS and MCLA 449.6 (Historical Notes); 1929 CL 9841; 1948 CL 449.”
Kay Inv. Co., LLC v. Brody Realty No. 1, LLC, 731 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “We hold that the record evidence compels the conclusion that the original parties to the agreement intended to and did in fact create a joint venture, with the sole purpose of developing and renting out a retail shopping center in Southgate. As noted, the original parties to the…”
Holmes v. Kraus (In Re Kraus), 37 B.R. 126 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1984). “§ 449.6(1). This Court, therefore, holds that the May 22 agreement between the parties created a partnership.”
First Pub. Corp. v. Parfet, 631 N.W.2d 785 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “Moore v DuBard, 318 Mich 578, 593-594 ; 29 NW2d 94 (1947); MCL 449.6(1). Plaintiffs’ reliance on Opdyke Investment Co v Norris Grain Co, 413 Mich 354 ; 320 NW2d 836 (1982), to argue that a factual issue was shown with regard to the existence of a “joint venture” or “partnership”…”
Scott Fowler v. Donald Keiper (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “]” MCL 449.6(1). This statute also provides: (2) But any association formed under any other statute of this state, or any statute adopted by authority, other than the authority of this state, is not a partnership under this act, unless such association would have been a…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.6(2) — 1 case
Scott Fowler v. Donald Keiper (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “]” MCL 449.6(1). This statute also provides: (2) But any association formed under any other statute of this state, or any statute adopted by authority, other than the authority of this state, is not a partnership under this act, unless such association would have been a…”
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.