An oral contract to make a will must be proved by clear, concise, and convincing evidence.Barchus v. Pioneer Trust Co., 229 Or. 268, 270, 366 P.2d 890 (1961). In Cook v. Michael, 214 Or. 513, 527, 330 P.2d 1026 (1958), we stated: "[P]roof by `clear and convincing evidence' means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable," not merely "more probably true than false."

Some of the more recent cases from states in the Pacific area, which have applied this rule, are the following: Wood v. Wrigley, 119 Cal.App.2d 90, 258 P.2d 1049; Lynch v. Lichtenthaler, 85 Cal.App.2d 437, 193 P.2d 77; Hoft v. Armbruster, 125 Colo. 198, 242 P.2d 604; Wehrle v. Pickering, 106 Colo. 134, 102 P.2d 737; Thomas v. Thomas, 83 Idaho 86, 357 P.2d 935; Anderson v. Whipple, 71 Idaho 112, 227 P.2d 351; Johnson v. Flatness, 70 Idaho 37, 211 P.2d 769; In re Mueseler's Estate, 188 Kan. 407, 362 P.2d 653; In re Duncan's Estate, 186 Kan. 427, 350 P.2d 1112; In re Wert's Estate, 165 Kan. 49, 193 P.2d 253, opinion adhered to 166 Kan. 159, 199 P.2d 793; Shook v. Woodard, 129 Mont. 519, 290 P.2d 750; Cox v. Williamson, 124 Mont. 512, 227 P.2d 614; Lindley v. Lindley, 67 N.M. 439, 356 P.2d 455; McDonald v. Polansky, 48 N.M. 518, 153 P.2d 670; Barchus v. Pioneer Trust Co., 229 Or. 268, 366 P.2d 890; Hunter v. Allen, 174 Or. 261, 147 P.2d 213, modified as to other matter 174 Or. 261, 148 P.2d 936; Silhavy v. Doane, 50 Wn.2d 110, 309 P.2d 1047; Ferris v. Blumhardt, 48 Wn.2d 395, 293 P.2d 935; Boettcher v. Busse, 45 Wn.2d 579, 277 P.2d 368, 49 A.L.R.2d 191; In re Hickman's Estate, 41 Wn.2d 519, 250 P.2d 524; Jansen v. Campbell, 37 Wn.2d 879, 227 P.2d 175; Jennings v. D'Hooghe, 25 Wn.2d 702, 172 P.2d 189; McGregor v. McGregor, 25 Wn.2d 511, 171 P.2d 694; Auger v. Shideler, 23 Wn.2d 505, 161 P.2d 200; Whiting v. Armstrong, 23 Wn.2d 290, 160 P.2d 1014; Payn v. Hoge, 21 Wn.2d 32, 149 P.2d 939; Dau v. Pence, 16 Wn.2d 368, 133 P.2d 523; and Aho v. Ahola, 4 Wn.2d 598, 104 P.2d 487. As I see it, the trial judge in the case at bar was correct in finding that the letters relied upon by plaintiff did not fix the terms of the agreement with sufficient definiteness, and that proof of a contract of this nature must be direct and definite. It is regrettable that he is being reversed

" See, also, Barchus v. Pioneer Trust Co., 229 Or. 268, 366 P.2d 890, which has many factual and legal attributes in common with the case at bar. Moreover, evidence of the former Mrs. Witherspoon is lacking in corroboration.