Myra Clark Gaines, the appellant in this case, was contesting a will that had been written by her father Daniel Clark. The executors of his estate were Richard Relf and Beverly Chew. Myra argued that the will should be declared invalid because it had not been properly executed according to Louisiana law at the time. She also claimed that she was entitled to an inheritance from her father's estate due to certain promises he made before his death. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Myra and held that the will was indeed invalid under Louisiana law as well as other applicable laws at the time. Furthermore, they found evidence supporting Myra's claim for an inheritance based on promises made by her father prior to his death; thus granting her rights over part of his estate despite its lack of validity under state law.

Myra Clark Gaines, the appellant in this case, argued that she was entitled to a portion of her father's estate. She claimed that her father had promised to give her an inheritance before his death and thus should be recognized as having rights over the property. The majority opinion held that Myra did not have any legal right or claim to the estate since there was no written evidence of such a promise from her father. However, Justice Daniel dissented from this ruling and argued that Myra should be granted access to some part of the estate due to equity considerations. He reasoned that even though there may not have been any formal agreement between Myra and her deceased father regarding an inheritance, it would still be unjust for him not recognize his daughter’s claims given their close relationship prior to his death. Furthermore, he noted how other courts had previously ruled in favor of similar cases where verbal promises were made by parents but never formally documented on paper. Therefore, Justice Daniel concluded that while there may have been no legally binding contract between them at the time of death; justice demanded recognition for Myra’s claims nonetheless