assert the statement in Fontenot requiring a stipulation pour autrui to be in writing is merely dicta. In this case, plaintiffs argue the benefits they were to receive were clearly contemplated by the parties to the contract and were not merely incidental. They assert the court of appeal decision is correct and should be affirmed.
At the hearing on the exceptions, defendants introduced a copy of the contract dated December 13, 1990. The contract, an anesthesia service agreement, was executed by and between the Hospital and SMAA. Dr. Joseph signed the contract on behalf of SMAA, but not in his individual capacity. Dr. Brumfield is not mentioned in the contract. In the contract, SMAA was referred to as the "Contractor." The Hospital agreed to retain the Contractor to exclusivelyprovide anesthesia services. The Hospital agreed to provide facilities, equipment, and supplies necessary and proper for the administration of anesthesia to its patients. Additionally, the Hospital agreed to recognize Dr. Joseph as a "medical specialist" providing services on behalf of the Contractor. The Hospital also *1211 agreed to recognize any employee of the Contractor (any duly licensed and qualified physician trained in delivery of anesthesia services and licensed to practice in Louisiana) as a "medical specialist" on behalf of the Contractor, SMAA.
The contract further provided that the Contractor may from time to time retain the services of other physician specialists who were to comply with all of the terms and conditions of the agreement.
The contract specifically provided that the Contractor was an "independent contractor" and clearly stated there