Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 323.24 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1997 c 174 art 12 s 68; 1998 c 262 s 12]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1949–1988 · leading case: Hogs Unlimited v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 401 N.W.2d 381 (Minn. 1987).
Hogs Unlimited v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 401 N.W.2d 381 (Minn. 1987). “” Minn.Stat. § 323.24 (1986). See Kangas v.”
Beach v. Anderson, 417 N.W.2d 709 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “Minn. Stat. § 323.24 , subd. 5 (1986), states: A partner’s right in specific partnership property is not subject to dower, curtesy, the statutory interest of a surviving spouse, or allowances to a surviving spouse, heirs or next of kin.”
Lanesboro State Bank v. Fishbaugher, 383 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “Validity of security agreement: Lee & John’s argues that the security agreement between the bank and Hall is void and unenforceable because it violates Minn.Stat. § 323.24(2), which states that a partner’s right in specific partnership property is not assignable.”
Shapiro v. United States, 83 F. Supp. 375 (D. Minnesota 1949). “That is, neither Exhibit G nor any other document appears to declare that plaintiff herein intended or that O’Brien intended that plaintiff convey his interest in specific partnership property rather than in the partnership as originally intended. And in Minnesota a partner…”
Schoenborn v. Schoenborn, 402 N.W.2d 212 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “His testimony that he had already provided sufficient collateral for his loans is undisputed, and there is no indication in the record that he was able to secure a lower interest rate because of the additional collateral. Nor was the partnership damaged,' even potentially, by…”
Pearson v. Bertelson, 69 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. 1955). “412 provides that upon the death of one of the joint obligors to a joint contract his estate shall be liable. 2 Since we are here concerned with a pending action, and since any liability arising from the partnership obligation does not necessarily cease with the exhaustion of…”
— Minn. Stat. § 323.24(2) — 2 cases
Lanesboro State Bank v. Fishbaugher, 383 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “Validity of security agreement: Lee & John’s argues that the security agreement between the bank and Hall is void and unenforceable because it violates Minn.Stat. § 323.24(2), which states that a partner’s right in specific partnership property is not assignable.”
Schoenborn v. Schoenborn, 402 N.W.2d 212 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “His testimony that he had already provided sufficient collateral for his loans is undisputed, and there is no indication in the record that he was able to secure a lower interest rate because of the additional collateral. Nor was the partnership damaged,' even potentially, by…”
— Minn. Stat. § 323.24(4) — 1 case
Pearson v. Bertelson, 69 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. 1955). “412 provides that upon the death of one of the joint obligors to a joint contract his estate shall be liable. 2 Since we are here concerned with a pending action, and since any liability arising from the partnership obligation does not necessarily cease with the exhaustion of…”
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.