If part performance is relied upon to take an oral contract out of the statute of frauds the evidence of the oral contract must be clear, unequivocal and definite.1 It is necessary to offer "unequivocal and satisfactory evidence of the particular agreement charged in the bill and answer."2 Under the Iowa statute it has been held sufficient to charge the jury that the plaintiff must "satisfy" them that there has been part per-

Finch v. Finch, 10 O. S. 501; Stanley v. Madison, 11 Okla. 288; 66 Pac. 280; Adams v. Adams, 17 Or. 247; 20 Pac. 633.

In Missouri marriage and cohabitation are treated as part performance. Nowack v. Berger, 133 Mo. 24; 54 Am. St. Rep. 663; 31 L. R. A. 810; 34 S. W. 489.

1McGauhey v. Latham, 63 Ga. 67; rehearing denied, 147 Ind. 690; 37 L. R. A. 245; 47 N. E. 150.

2 English v. Richards Co., 109 Ga. 635; 34 S. E. 1002.

3 English v. Richards Co., 109 Ga.

635; 34 S. E. 1002. The decision was clearly correct though the theory of part performance was unnecessary.

1Purcell v. Miner, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 513; Beall v. Clark, 71 Ga. 818; Sloniger v. Sloniger, 161 111. 270; 43 N. E. 1111; Truman v. Truman, 79 la. 506; 44 N. W. 721; Bennett v. Dyer, 89 Me. 17; 35 Atl. 1004; Woodbury v. Gardner, 77 Me. 68; Brown v. Brown, 47 Mich. 378; 11 N. W. 205.

2 Williams v. Morris, 95 U. S. 444, 457; quoted in Buttz v. Colformance before he can recover.3 Whatever the phraseology employed the courts usually required more than a mere preponderance of the evidence to prove such contract.