When a finding of fact is challenged on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, does the appellate court have any power to substitute its conclusions for those of the trial court?

(1) When a finding of fact is attacked on the ground that there is not any substantial evidence to sustain it, the power of an appellate court begins and ends with the determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the finding of fact. (Primm v. Primm, 46 Cal.2d 690, 693(1), 299 P.2d 231.)

(2) When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, a reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court. (Primm v. Primm, supra, 46 Cal.2d at page 694(2), 299 P.2d 231.)