With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the lease. Phelps and Helms suggest that Maxey’s testimony satisfies the test in Gates v. Asher. We disagree. Gates allows parol evidence when there is a “nucleus” of the property’s description. Here, the “pitch package,” the Railroad Commission filing, the assignment and bill of sale, and the two drawings only describe land somewhere in Gregg County. Phelps and Helms do not cite to any authority that the reference to a Railroad Commission lease number can serve as the basis for a legal description. Even if a Railroad Commission lease number were a “nucleus” of the property’s description, there is no evidence in the appellate record of the property’s legal description or even evidence that Maxey, in fact, actually found the property. See Westland Oil Dev. Corp., 637 S.W.2d at 909 (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Fisher, 144 Tex. 53, 188 S.W.2d

A: holding that words which expressly refer to adequate legal description provide nucleus of description that is legally sufficient for statute of frauds
B: holding description all personal property sufficient to cover equipment
C: holding that description was sufficiently detailed
D: holding evidence legally sufficient
A.