Short answer. Yes. Under Article 1833, when a partnership is dissolved by a partner's death, each partner remains liable to his co-partners for his share of a liability created by a partner acting for the firm — as if it had not dissolved — unless the acting partner knew or had notice of the death. Acting in ignorance keeps that liability alive.
What the law says
each partner is liable to his co-partners for his share of any liability created by any partner acting for the partnership as if the partnership had not been dissolved
Civil Code, Article 1833 — Liability Among Partners After Dissolution. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The dissolution being by the death or insolvency of a partner, the partner acting for the partnership had knowledge or notice of the death or insolvency
Civil Code, Article 1833 — Liability Among Partners After Dissolution. Read the full provision →
The default: you share the liability
Article 1833 is about liability among the partners themselves — how they settle up between each other, not what outsiders can claim. Its starting rule is that where the dissolution is caused by the act, death or insolvency of a partner, each partner is liable to his co-partners for his share of any liability created by any partner acting for the partnership as if the partnership had not been dissolved. In plain terms, when one partner does a deal after a death that dissolved the firm, the resulting liability is shared among the partners in the ordinary way — as though nothing had changed — subject to the exceptions the article then lists.
The exception turns on knowledge
A partner is released from that internal sharing only in the specified cases. Where the dissolution is by the death or insolvency of a partner, the escape applies where the partner acting for the partnership had knowledge or notice of the death or insolvency. So the pivotal fact is what the acting partner knew. If he entered the deal knowing the partner had died, he cannot pass a share of that liability back onto co-partners who were entitled to assume the firm was winding down. But if he acted without knowledge or notice of the death, no exception applies, and the default sharing rule governs instead.
Applied to your situation
On the facts you describe — a partner made a deal without knowing of the death — the exception does not come into play, because it requires that the acting partner had knowledge or notice. With no knowledge, Article 1833's general rule stands: the partners are liable among themselves for their respective shares of that liability, as if the partnership had continued. The partner who acted in good-faith ignorance is not left to carry it alone; the burden is distributed across the partners according to their shares in the firm.
This is separate from what creditors can do
Keep two questions apart. Article 1833 allocates the loss between the partners. What an outside creditor or other third person can demand from the partnership after dissolution is governed by different rules, which turn on things like whether the creditor knew of the dissolution and whether the partner had apparent authority. So a firm may owe an outsider on a post-death deal while, internally, the partners still divide that burden under Article 1833. Sorting out the internal shares does not by itself answer what the third party is owed.