Haynes v. Henderson , 1961 Tex. App. LEXIS 2264 ( 1961 )

HUGHES, Justice

(concurring).

Regardless of the nature or sufficiency of the part performance alluded to by Associate Justice Gray in his dissent, it is not “unequivocally referable” to the alleged oral contract to devise. Every act of Parrie Haynes in accepting benefits under the will of W. A. Haynes may be explained quite separate and apart from the alleged oral contract. Unless the acts relied upon to take an oral contract out of reach of the Statute of Frauds are unequivocably referable to such contract, they do not tend to prove the existence of the oral contract. Francis v. Thomas, 129 Tex. 579, 106 S.W.2d 257. Here, all the acts of Parrie Haynes are consistent with her rights under the will of W. A. Haynes.