
    [No. 17972.
    Department One.
    August 1, 1923.]
    Herbert W. Savage et al., Respondents, v. Paul F. Rodenbeck et al., Appellants.
    
    Specific Performance (15) — Parol Contract to Convey Land— Evidence — Sufficiency. Findings to support specific performance of an oral contract to convey land will be set aside when not proved by clear and ^convincing evidence, the evidence being very conflicting, and the trial court stating that he assumed that the bare preponderance of the evidence was sufficient.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Yakima county, Holden, J., entered May 8, 1922, in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action for specific performance, tried to the court.
    Reversed.
    
      Grady, Shumate & Velikanje, for appellants.
    
      Parker, LaBerge & Parker, for respondents.
    
      
       Reported in 216 Pac. 869.
    
   Per Curiam.

— The respondent desires specific performance of an alleged oral contract to convey a fraction of an acre of agricultural land, and claims that substantial and permanent improvements made by Mm remove the objection of the statute of frauds. Oral contracts such as this must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and, much as we hesitate to disagree with a trial court on questions of fact, we cannot feel that the testimony meets the required standard. In the statement of facts appears this remark of the court at the conclusion of the trial; “. . . the evidence is very conflicting. I had assumed all the way through that the bare preponderance of evidence was sufficient.” The decree must have been J>ased on this erroneous assumption, and is reversed and the action dismissed.  