Brief Fact Summary. Appellant administrator, George Putnam, brought an action against Appellees, John and Maurine Shoaf, to collect money paid to Appellee’s partnership. Appellees bought their interest of the partnership from Carolyn Putnam, whose estate is now represented by Appellant.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A conveyance of partnership property by one partner held in the name of the partnership is made in the name of the partnership and not as a conveyance of the individual interests of the partners.
Issue. The issue is whether Putnam’s conveyance of her rights in the business to Appellees included the rights to the money collected by Appellees.
Held. The Appellant is not entitled to the money collected by the business. Although the dishonest bookkeeping occurred while Putnam was still a partner, Putnam signed over her undivided interest in the partnership to Appellees. A partner does not personally own any specific property of the partnership and therefore can not retain any rights to the partnership after she conveyed it to Appellees. If she had an interest in the money, then she had an interest in the partnership.