(Corp. Code, ยง 15035, subd. (1)(b)II.) It was the former partners' burden to prove the notice was published ( Epley v. Hiller (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 100, 104 [ 274 P.2d 696]), and no such evidence was produced below. There was evidence the money from the sale was "divided," but no evidence of when this occurred.
This court is required to uphold such a reasonable inference. ( Epley v. Hiller (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 100, 104 [ 274 P.2d 696].) Rabinowitch v. Cal. Western Gas Co. (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 150 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 1] establishes this point.
[3] The burden is on a defendant relying on dissolution to prove notice of dissolution. ( Epley v. Hiller, 128 Cal.App.2d 100 [ 274 P.2d 696].) [4a] Appellant cannot rely on the provisions of section 15035.5 of the Corporations Code to show actual knowledge.
The burden of proving that plaintiff had such knowledge was on Altman. (See Epley v. Hiller, 128 Cal.App.2d 100, 103-104 [ 274 P.2d 696].) The findings were to the effect that Altman had not carried the burden of such proof.
It is thus evident that if Giordano, Sr.'s individual proprietorship with which plaintiff had intitiated its business relationship had been a partnership, Giordano, Sr. would have remained liable pursuant to the Act since plaintiff had neither knowledge nor notice as therein defined. See, e.g., so applying state provisions corresponding to the Uniform Partnership Act, 6 U.L.A. ยงยง 3, 35 (1969), Credit Bureaus of Merced County, Inc. v. Shipman, 167 Cal.App.2d 673, 676-79, 334 P.2d 1036, 1039-1040 (Dist.Ct.App. 1959); Epley v. Hiller, 128 Cal. App.2d 100, 103, 274 P.2d 696, 698 (Dist.Ct.App. 1954); Kaydee Sales Corp. v. Feldman, 14 Misc.2d 793, 795, 183 N.Y.S.2d 151, 154 (Sup.Ct. 1958); Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Wofford, 296 P.2d 967, 970 (Okla. 1956); Johnson Tire Co. v. Maddux, 188 Tenn. 626, 627-628, 221 S.W.2d 948, 948-949 (1949); Letellier-Phillips, supra, 32 Tenn.App. at 150, 222 S.W.2d at 48.