There is no serious controversy between the parties as to the law. Both sides recognize that, to prove an instrument which appears on its face to be a deed is, in fact, a mortgage, the evidence must be clear, cogent and convincing. Burns v. Fielder, 197 Ark. 85, 122 S.W.2d 160. Grimes v. Evans, 225 Ark. 770, 285 S.W.2d 510. Walter contends that in 1923, when the debt to the bank in the sum of $2,260.

' "And in the recent case of Burns v. Fielder, 197 Ark. 85, 122 S.W.2d 160, this court said: `The evidence necessary to impeach the solemn recitations of the deed must be clear and convincing. As was said in Bevens v. Brown, 196 Ark. 1177, 120 S.W.2d 574, such evidence must be so clear that reasonable minds will have no doubt that such an agreement was executed.

In the more recent case of Berk, et al., v. Beckett, et al., 200 Ark. 1189, 137 S.W.2d 898, this court sustained the Chancery Court in refusing to reform a certain deed executed some 19 years earlier in which it was alleged that there was an error in expressing the interest intended to be conveyed. The court quoted with favor from the case of Burns v. Fielder, 197 Ark. 85, 122 S.W.2d 160: "The evidence necessary to impeach the solemn recitations of the deed must be clear and convincing.

" The court said in the case of Burns v. Fielder, 197 Ark. 85, 122 S.W.2d 160, that: "The evidence necessary to impeach the solemn recitations of the deed must be clear and convincing. As was said in Bevans v. Brown, 196 Ark. 1177, 120 S.W.2d 574, such evidence must be so clear that reasonable minds will have no doubt that such an agreement was executed.

To overcome the deed and Gunnels' conduct, evidence clear and convincing was essential. Burns v. Fielder, 197 Ark. 85, 122 S.W.2d 160; Daniels v. Moore, 197 Ark. 727, 125 S.W.2d 456; Stephens v. Keener, 199 Ark. 1051, 137 S.W.2d 253. These decisions, we think, control in the case at bar. If appellees are correct in their assertions that there was no intention to part with title to the property, and if N.W. Gunnels is not mistaken in his understanding of what the parol agreement was, they must suffer loss by reason of inexcusable carelessness in not exacting written evidence of the contract.

It must be "clear and convincing"; or, as otherwise expressed, "clear and satisfactory." 20 American Jurisprudence 1103, 1252 and 1253; Morris v. Cobb, 147 Ark. 184, 227 S.W. 23; Burns v. Fielder, 197 Ark. 85, 90, 122 S.W.2d 160; Bevens v. Brown, 196 Ark. 1177, 120 S.W.2d 574. The references are to acknowledged instruments.

" And in the recent case of Burns v. Fielder, 197 Ark. 85, 122 S.W.2d 160, this court said: "The evidence necessary to impeach the solemn recitals of the deed must be clear and convincing. As was said in Bevens v. Brown, 196 Ark. 1177, 120 S.W.2d 574, such evidence `must be so clear that reasonable minds will have no doubt that such an agreement was executed.

" And in the recent case of Burns v. Fielder, 197 Ark. 85, 122 S.W.2d 160, this court said: "The evidence necessary to impeach the solemn recitations of the deed must be clear and convincing.

We do not think this evidence is of that clearness required under the law to say that a deed absolute upon its face was intended to be a mortgage. The rule relative to the character of the evidence required to prove that a deed in form was intended as a mortgage was recently re-announced and re-affirmed in the case of Burns v. Fielder, ante, p. 85; 122 S.W.2d 160, in the following language: "The evidence necessary to impeach the solemn recitation of the deed must be clear and convincing. . . . such evidence must be so clear that reasonable minds will have no doubt that such an agreement was executed.