Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 358
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 358.130 (2026)

Partnership bound by partner's wrongful act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  358.130.  Partnership bound by partner's wrongful act. — Where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of the partnership or with the authority of his copartners, loss or injury is caused to any person, not being a partner in the partnership, or any penalty is incurred, the partnership is liable therefor to the same extent as the partner so acting or omitting to act.

­­--------

(L. 1949 p. 506 § 13)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1967–2022 · leading case: Patrick Blanks v. Fluor Corp., 450 S.W.3d 308 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Patrick Blanks v. Fluor Corp., 450 S.W.3d 308 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “And Missouri law holds a partnership liable for the acts of one of the partners in the ordinary course of the partnership’s business or with the authority of his copartners.”
Martin v. Yeoham, 419 S.W.2d 937 (Mo. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 4× “Section 358.130 reads as follows: “Where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of the partnership or with the authority of his co-partners, loss or injury is Caused to any person, not being a partner in the partnership, or…”
Ward v. State Farmers Mut. Tornado Ins. Co. of Missouri, 441 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. 1969). · cites it 6× “” In 1949, the General Assembly enacted § 358.130, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. (Section 13 of the Uniform Partnership Act), which *4 provides: “Where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of the partnership or with the authority of…”
Dwyer v. ING Inv. Co., Inc., 889 S.W.2d 902 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 5× “Section 358.130 RSMo 1986 provides: Where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of the partnership or with the authority of his copartners, loss or injury is caused to any person, not being a partner in the partnership, or…”
Temple Stephens Co. v. Westenhaver, 776 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “§ 358.130, RSMo 1986. Here, however, Mr. Roemer’s intentional omission of Temple Stephens Co.”
Nathan Reuter v. Tana Cutcliff, 686 F.3d 511 (8th Cir. 2012). “1994) (citing Mo. Rev. Stat. § 358.130 ). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that the nine creditors’ underlying claims against Reuter were valid based on his vicarious liability for Brown’s fraud under Missouri law.”
Rogers v. Hickerson, 716 S.W.2d 439 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). “1967); § 358.130, and § 358.150. It is unnecessary to show she had knowledge of Henry Hickerson’s representations or that she subsequently ratified them in order to recover punitive damages against her as it is clear he was acting within the scope of his authority in selling the…”
Multilist Serv. of Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Inc. v. Wilson, 14 S.W.3d 110 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “We find no holding from the trial court stating that the partners are not liable regardless of Wilson’s liability.”
Rhodes v. Rogers, 675 S.W.2d 107 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). “Anderson is entirely consistent with the statutory rule that the tort liability of the members of a partnership is not severable, § 358.130; cf. Ward v. State Farmers Mutual Tornado Ins.”
Oetker v. Bullington (In Re Bullington), 167 B.R. 157 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1994). “§ 358.130 (1968). The partnership is also required to make up any loss sustained where one partner acting within the scope of his apparent authority misapplies the property of another.”
Foster v. Keena, 714 S.W.2d 180 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Oliver were connected to the eviction as members of a partnership, § 358.130, RSMo 1978, or a joint venture, 46 Am.”
Bakewell v. Heritage Nat'l Bank, 890 S.W.2d 653 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “§ 358.130, RSMo (1986). Here, the trial court did not find that Kelley was acting on behalf of Manchester and its partners when he took control of the disbursement of the refund money from the escrow account.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.