because if McCallum had been a partner on November 17, 1994, Judge Imber’s Order providing for the retention of his partnership interest would have been superfluous. Further, in her Order dated March 19, 1992, Judge Imber unequivocally stated that McCallum’s withdrawal from the partnership had been accepted on May 23,1991. A partner’s right of withdrawal or retirement from the partnership is an inseparable incident of every partnership; no party is compelled to continue as a partner when he chooses to withdraw. 59A Am.Jur.2d Partnership § 520 (1987). The right of a retiring partner who has not been paid for his partnership interest is that of a creditor of the partnership. Ark.Code Ann. § 4-42-614 (Michie 1987). See also Zach v. Schulman, 213 Ark. 122, 128, 210 S.W.2d 124, 128 (1948) (<HOLDING>). Further, the unequivocal language of the
holding partner owes fiduciary duty in dealings effecting the winding up of the partnership and the proper preservation of partnership assets during that time holding that under texas law limited partner could not bring breach of fiduciary duty claims without the partnership because the partners claims would be indirect and duplicative of the partnerships claims holding only a party to the partnership agreement can breach it and be liable for a breach of fiduciary duty relating to partnership obligations holding that a retiring partner or the representative of a deceased partner is a creditor of the partnership in the amount of the retiring or deceased partners partnership interest holding that under the texas uniform partnership act the government was entitled to collect the  tax liability indisputably a partnership debt from any one of the general partners