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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.9 (2026)

Partner as agent of partnership relative to partnership business.

✓ current as of July 2026 Cite as: Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.9 (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


449.9 Partner as agent of partnership relative to partnership business.

Sec. 9.

    (Partner agent of partnership as to partnership business).

    (1) Every partner is an agent of the partnership for the purpose of its business, and the act of every partner, including the execution in the partnership name of any instrument, for apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the partnership of which he is a member binds the partnership, unless the partner so acting has in fact no authority to act for the partnership in the particular matter, and the person with whom he is dealing has knowledge of the fact that he has no such authority;

    (2) An act of a partner which is not apparently for the carrying on of the business of the partnership in the usual way does not bind the partnership unless authorized by the other partners;

    (3) Unless authorized by the other partners or unless they have abandoned the business, 1 or more but less than all the partners have no authority to:

    (a) Assign the partnership property in trust for creditors or on the assignee's promise to pay the debts of the partnership,

    (b) Dispose of the good-will of the business,

    (c) Do any other act which would make it impossible to carry on the ordinary business of the partnership,

    (d) Confess a judgment,

    (e) Submit a partnership claim or liability to arbitration or reference;

    (4) No act of a partner in contravention of a restriction on his authority shall bind the partnership to persons having knowledge of the restriction.

History: 1917, Act 72, Eff. Aug. 10, 1917 ;-- CL 1929, 9849 ;-- CL 1948, 449.9

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1960–2020 · leading case: City National Bank of Detroit v. Westland Towers Apts.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City National Bank of Detroit v. Westland Towers Apts. (1981) michctapp · cites it 8× “" MCL 449.9(1); MSA 20.9(1). Initially, we note our disagreement with the lower court on the issue of whether obtaining the extension on letter of credit DI-211 was within the usual course of business.”
Omnicom of Michigan v. Giannetti Investment Co. (1997) michctapp · cites it 3× “[MCL 449.9(1); MSA 20.9(1) (emphasis supplied).”
Grosberg v. Michigan National Bank Oakland (1985) mich · cites it 5× “” MCL 449.9(1); MSA 20.9(1). *716 In analyzing the provision quoted above, the Court of Appeals concluded that the section was inapplicable because the bank, having no knowledge of the existence of a partnership, "could hardly rely on any apparent authority of Goldman as a…”
Kay Investment Co., LLC v. Brody Realty No. 1, LLC (2007) michctapp · cites it 4× “The significance of whether the parties here created a partnership or a joint venture is that a partnership may own real property, or the partners may own as tenants in partnership, see Wengel v.”
Urbain v. Beierling (2013) michctapp “Plaintiff also asserts that discontinuing the partnership was an act that made it impossible to carry on the ordinary business of the partnership, which was required to be authorized by all partners according to' MCL 449.9(3)(c). Plaintiffs arguments fail to acknowledge the…”
Backowski v. Solecki (1982) michctapp · cites it 2× “n in the partnership name of any instrument, for apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the partnership of which he is a *408 member binds the partnership, unless the partner so acting has in fact no authority to act for the partnership in the particular matter,…”
Morris Cruises v. Irwin Yacht & Marine Corp. (1991) michctapp · cites it 2× “As agents of the partnership, see MCL 449.9; MSA 20.9, they would possess the power to do only those things that the partnership itself could do; therefore, if the partnership lacked the capacity to sue, so would they as its agents.”
First American Title Insurance v. Gaskill (In re Gaskill) (2012) miwb · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 449.9 (1); 449.15.”
Birch Run Nursery v. Jemal (1974) michctapp “MCLA 449.9; MSA 20.9. An agent is a deputy, appointed by his principal, with power to do those things which the principal can do.”
Robert R. Jones Associates, Inc. v. Nino Homes (1987) mied “Nevertheless, it was established that his partner Ginter was well aware of the questionable source of the Riverside concept.”
Friendship Jackson LLC v. Friendship Forest Pk Ltd Div Housing (2020) michctapp · cites it 7× “They specifically argued that FFPC’s authority under the Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA) and MCL 449.9(1) was restricted to acts in LDHA’s “usual course of business,” which did not include the sale of the subject property.”
Eastland Partners Ltd. Partners v. Village Green Management Co. (2003) ca6 “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 449.9 (1) (emphasis added).”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.9(1) — 9 cases
City National Bank of Detroit v. Westland Towers Apts. (1981) michctapp “" MCL 449.9(1); MSA 20.9(1). Initially, we note our disagreement with the lower court on the issue of whether obtaining the extension on letter of credit DI-211 was within the usual course of business.”
Omnicom of Michigan v. Giannetti Investment Co. (1997) michctapp “[MCL 449.9(1); MSA 20.9(1) (emphasis supplied).”
Grosberg v. Michigan National Bank Oakland (1985) mich “” MCL 449.9(1); MSA 20.9(1). *716 In analyzing the provision quoted above, the Court of Appeals concluded that the section was inapplicable because the bank, having no knowledge of the existence of a partnership, "could hardly rely on any apparent authority of Goldman as a…”
Kay Investment Co., LLC v. Brody Realty No. 1, LLC (2007) michctapp “The significance of whether the parties here created a partnership or a joint venture is that a partnership may own real property, or the partners may own as tenants in partnership, see Wengel v.”
Friendship Jackson LLC v. Friendship Forest Pk Ltd Div Housing (2020) michctapp “They specifically argued that FFPC’s authority under the Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA) and MCL 449.9(1) was restricted to acts in LDHA’s “usual course of business,” which did not include the sale of the subject property.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.9(2) — 1 case
Friendship Jackson LLC v. Friendship Forest Pk Ltd Div Housing (2020) michctapp “They specifically argued that FFPC’s authority under the Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA) and MCL 449.9(1) was restricted to acts in LDHA’s “usual course of business,” which did not include the sale of the subject property.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.9(3)(c) — 2 cases
Urbain v. Beierling (2013) michctapp “Plaintiff also asserts that discontinuing the partnership was an act that made it impossible to carry on the ordinary business of the partnership, which was required to be authorized by all partners according to' MCL 449.9(3)(c). Plaintiffs arguments fail to acknowledge the…”
Friendship Jackson LLC v. Friendship Forest Pk Ltd Div Housing (2020) michctapp “They specifically argued that FFPC’s authority under the Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA) and MCL 449.9(1) was restricted to acts in LDHA’s “usual course of business,” which did not include the sale of the subject property.”
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.