Mead

The matter in controversy is set out substantially in appellant’s brief, as follows:

Two points only are made ‘by appellant why tMs decree should be reversed, to wit:

1. The insufficiency of the evidence to support it; and

2. The abuse by the trial court of its discretion in permitting respondent’s counsel to persist in propounding leading questions on direct examination.

We will discuss the above points in the order named.: It will not be necessary to quote extensively from the record, as a careful perusal of the same discloses a sharp conflict therein upon the material points, with sufficient and ample evidence to support the judgment of the trial court.

[1] Indeed, the inquiry might properly be limited to one question, and that is, whether the son induced the father to execute the deed upon the promise that the former would reeonvey to the latter upon demand. If there is evidence in the record to justify an answer thereto in the affirmative, the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed. This is admitted by appellant in the following language: “It will clear the atmosphere if we concede at the outset of this reply that if our client induced Ms father to execute the deed…