Case Title: McRoberts v. Hayes

Citation: 181 So. 2d 390, 248 La. 676

Docket Number: 

State: louisiana

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Date: 1965-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
181 So. 2d 390 (1965) 248 La. 676 James J. McROBERTS v. Raymond B. HAYES. No. 47752. Supreme Court of Louisiana. December 13, 1965. Rehearing Denied January 17, 1966. *391 Sam Monk Zelden, Max Zelden, New Orleans, for plaintiff-applicant. Cobb & Wright, Joseph V. Ferguson, II, New Orleans, for respondents. SANDERS, Justice. Plaintiff brought this suit to dissolve and liquidate an alleged verbal partnership with the defendant, Raymond B. Hayes. Thereafter, he filed six amended and supplemental petitions alleging a verbal partnership or joint venture with the defendant Hayes to promote various endeavors in connection with the production of oil and gas, including the securing of mineral leases and the forming of corporations. Plaintiff seeks a decree that the partnership or joint venture owns a mineral lease interest held by Expedition Oils, Inc., a corporation whose principal stockholder is defendant Hayes. Although the interest presently stands in the name of the corporation, plaintiff asserts partnership efforts obtained the lease interest and therefore it is an asset of the partnership. Alternatively, plaintiff seeks a decree that the partnership owns all stock in Expendition Oils, Inc. The district court dismissed the suit on an exception of no cause of action, or peremptory exception. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed. La.App., 173 So. 2d 27. We granted certiorari, limited to plaintiff's alternative demand relating to the corporate stock. 247 La. 1023, 175 So. 2d 303. In affirming the district court, the Court of Appeal said: After careful review, we have concluded the Court of Appeal properly maintained the peremptory exception. It is true that corporate stock is a movable and parol evidence may be admitted to establish a contract relative to it. LSA-C.C. Arts. 474, 2277. See Lockhart v. Dickey, 161 La. 282, 108 So. 483. In the present case, however, plaintiff alleges no separable agreement that the corporate stock was to vest in the partnership. Rather, the partnership's right to the stock is based on the allegation that the mineral lease interest was procured through partnership efforts and for the benefit of the partnership. The assertion of the ownership of the stock is inseparable from the assertion of an interest in the mineral lease withheld from the partnership. It follows that the verbal agreement, as a whole, cannot be proved. The same requirement of written proof governing real estate transfers also governs contracts applying to or affecting mineral leases. LSA-C.C. Art. 2275; LSA-R.S. 9:1105; Little v. Haik, 246 La. 121, 163 So. 2d 558; Hayes v. Muller, 245 La. 356, 158 So. 2d 191. See also Ingolia v. Lobrano, 244 La. 241, 152 So. 2d 7. Moreover, the petitions exhibit an additional fatal defect in the cause of action. In Article V of the first supplemental petition, plaintiff has alleged: As reaffirmed in the later pleadings, the allegation constitutes a solemn acknowledgment of stock ownership. Thus, it negates ownership of the stock by the partnership and vitiates plaintiff's demand. For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.