Cited by

752; Greenfield v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 475 , ; Kins v. Ginzky, 135 Minn. 327 , ; Ham v. Johnson, 55 Minn. 115 , ; 5 Dunnell, Dig.

Carlson v. Carlson, 211 Minn. 297 , ; Jannetta v. Jannetta, 205 Minn. 266 , ; Greenfield v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 475 , .

These cases are cited from this court: *255 Fiske v. Lawton, 124 Minn. 85 , ; Kins v. Ginzky, 135 Minn. 327 , ; Greenfield v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 475 , ; Hinkle v. Berg, 156 Minn. 307 , ; Smith v. Erlandson, 160 Minn. 168 , ; Sheehan v. Nelson, 168 Minn. 426 , .

Examples of such are Greenfield v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 475 , 170 N.W.

Plaintiff has not established that she made partial performance, by way of services or otherwise, to entitle her now to 'a decree of specific performance, under the rule of such cases as Greenfield v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 475 , .

As supporting the contention of error appellant cites Knight v. Martin, 124 Minn. 191 , ; Wagner v. Seaberg, 138 Minn. 37 , ; Greenfield v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 475 , ; In re Estate of Klessig, 153 Minn. 27 , .

Powers v. Johnson, 107 Minn. 476 , ; Greenfield v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 475 , ; Hinkle v. Berg, 156 Minn. 307 , ; Smith v. Erlandson, 160 Minn. 168 , , and cases cited in those cases.

In Greenfield v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 475 , , there was a finding of no contract.

609; Haubrich v. Haubrich, 118 Minn. 394 , ; Robertson v. Corcoran, 125 Minn. 118 , ; Kins v. Ginzky, 135 Minn. 327 , ; Greenfield v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 475 , ; Colby v. Street, 146 Minn. 290 , .

Brasch v. Reeves, 124 Minn. 114 , ; Greenfield v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 475 , .

The psychology of these cases, as much as anything, has led to the adoption of the rule that the evidence therein will receive strict scrutiny, and that the defendant must prevail unless the plaintiff has established a case by evidence “clear, satisfactory and convincing.” See Greenfield v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 475 , , and cases cited.

And in Greenfield v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 475 , , it is said [Syllabus]: “The courts are strict in scrutinizing and weighing the evidence offered to establish such a contract, and it must be clear, satisfactory and convincing” — that is, a contract — such as appellant pleaded, one to make a will or deed.

420; Robertson v. Corcoran, 125 Minn. 118 , ; and *295 Greenfield v. Peterson, 141 Minn. 475 , .