Plаintiff 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 connectiоn 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 *679 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 stоck in Expedition 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.,
In affirming the district court, the Court of Appeal said:
“In order for plaintiff to obtain an interеst in the leases or any of the revenues or profits therefrom he must first prove the existence of the partnership or joint venture. Since the petition does not allege a written agreement of partnership or joint venture none can be proved. The petition therefore does not state a cause of action for any interest in the leases or in any of thе revenues or profits therefrom. * * * ”
“[W]e are of the opinion, in view of the allegations of the petition, that the alleged partnership had but one basic purpose. That purposе was to secure mineral leases and to engage in the oil and gas business. The formation of сorporations was merely incidental thereto. Plaintiff still claims that the leases held by Expeditiоn Oils Inc. are an asset of the partnership. It is only in the alternative that he claims an interest in the stock of the corporation. In seeking to obtain the stock he relies upon the identiсal agreement which is the basis for his claim to an interest in the leases. Since the basic agrеement cannot be established by parole the incidental agreement cannot stand аlone or form the basis of a cause of action. ‡
“Moreover the very foundation of рlaintiff’s demand that the corporate stock be decreed to be an asset of the рartnership, to be accounted for to him as a member thereof, is his allegation that the leases were procured as a direct result of the partnership efforts and formed pаrt of the partnership assets. He therefore cannot show any interest in the corporation without first proving the existence of a partnership to secure the mineral leases, аnd this he cannot do by parole.”
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 ad
*681
mitted to establish a contract relative to it. LSA-C.C. Arts. 474, 2277. See Lockhart v. Dickey,
Moreover, the petitions exhibit an additional fatal defect in the cause of action. In Article V of the first supplemental petition, plaintiff has alleged:
“All of the stock of Expedition Oils, Inc., with the exception of two shares listed in the names of Joan DeVay and Althea D. Cochrane, is owned by the said Raymond B. Hayes. Plaintiff avers, on information and belief, that the said Joan DeVay and Althea D. Cochrane are secretaries employed by Raymond B. Hayеs.”
As reaffirmed in the later pleadings, the allegation constitutes a solemn acknowledgment оf 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.