Opinion ID: 1645799
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: uniform partnership act and joint ventures

Text: In 1976 this state adopted the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA), Chapter 407, Laws 1976, Miss. Code Ann. § 79-12-1, et seq., the primary purpose of which was to codify the common law into one uniform act on partnerships. [8] The Act makes no effort to distinguish or eliminate joint ventures from its provisions. In other states courts have held the UPA applicable to cases involving joint ventures. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Braemoor Associates, 686 F.2d 550 (C.A. 7th Cir.1982); Thompson v. Thompson, 500 S.W.2d 203 (Tex.Civ.App. 1973); Hayes v. Killinger, 235 Ore. 465, 385 P.2d 747, 750 (1963); Mobile Oil Corp. v. Hurwitz, 63 Ill. App. 3rd 430, 20 Ill.Dec. 372, 380 N.E.2d 49 (1978); Lau v. Valu-Bilt Homes, Ltd., 59 Hawaii 283, 582 P.2d 195 (1978). Because for all practical purposes a joint venture is a miniature partnership, or a partnership limited in scope, it would be a trying proposition not to apply the same legal principles to them both. Putting the matter differently, if the UPA applies to all partnerships, it manifestly applies to joint ventures, except for possible exceptions in some very special cases. Miss. Code Ann. § 79-12-11(1), defining partnership, states: (1) A partnership is an association for two (2) or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit. There is nothing about this definition excluding our historical view of a joint venture. This statutory definition of a partnership is in accord with our common law rule on joint ventures that each has a proprietary interest in the undertaking and there is a mutual right of control. Sample v. Romine, 193 Miss. 706, 8 So.2d 257, 261 (1942); Bach v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 36 Wis.2d 72, 152 N.W.2d 911 (1967); Jenkins v. Brodnax Trucking Co., 437 S.W.2d 922 (C.A.Tex. 1969). See also: 48A C.J.S. Joint Ventures, § 11, and cases cited; 46 Am.Jur.2d Joint Ventures, § 12, and cases cited. Co-owner in the Act is synonymous with joint proprietary interest, the term used in many cases. As for a mutual right of control, the only control Tillman exercised was expressly delegated to him by Hults, and not as a co-owner, or one with community of interest. True, Tillman exercised substantial authority, but it was only as delegated to him by Hults. He never claimed more. We do not imply that in order to constitute a partnership or a joint venture, it would have been necessary for Tillman to own an interest in the land from which the dirt was sold, but it was necessary that he have a proprietary interest in the lease agreement from which all blessings flowed. It was necessary that Tillman be a co-owner with the Hultses in that contract. Also, it must be remembered in this case we are dealing with the rights of the parties between themselves, no third parties are involved. It is first apparent that Tillman and Hults did not come under Miss. Code Ann. § 79-12-11(1), the definition of a partnership, because they did not carry on the undertaking as co-owners. Tillman represented Hults, and performed services. However, there is nothing to suggest he did anything more than act as agent and/or attorney.