Although the evidence is conflicting on the issues presented, the determination of the questions of fact is for the trial court, and this court will not weigh the evidence in cases of this nature. Adams v. Hansford, 130 Okla. 155, 265 P. 762. We have carefully considered the evidence herein and conclude that the same reasonably supports the general findings of the trial court on such issues.

These rules are well established, and no useful purpose will be served by reviewing the evidence. The following recent cases support these rules: Hoodenpyl v. Guinn, 170 Okla. 78, 38 P.2d 510; Yellow Cab Taxi Baggage Co. v. New, 170 Okla. 334, 40 P.2d 651; Young v. Smith, 171 Okla. 222, 41 P.2d 461; Watt v. Buell, 172 Okla. 282. 44 P.2d 928; Adams v. Hansford, 130 Okla. 155, 265 P. 762. There is sufficient evidence to sustain the judgment of the trial court, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

Where a law action is tried to the court and there is a conflict in the evidence on the issues joined, determination of the questions of fact therein is for the trial court, and this court, on appeal, will not weigh the evidence or determine as to the credibility of the witnesses, that question being one for the trial court. Adams v. Hansford, 130 Okla. 155, 265 P. 762. Judgment affirmed.

This court will not weigh the evidence, but will be bound by the findings of the trial court if these findings are supported by competent evidence. Adams v. Hansford, 130 Okla. 155, 265 P. 762; Watashe v. Tiger, 88 Okla. 77, 211 P. 415; Nations et ux. v. Stone, 92 Okla. 18, 217 P. 1031. Upon the question of law involved, i. e., the effect of a release of the bond by the Superintendent of the Five Civilized Tribes after the removal of restrictions, plaintiffs in error have cited no authority to sustain their position, and we, under the decisions of this court hereinbefore cited, are not required to consider such argument.

This case was tried to the court, and, if there was a conflict in the evidence, it was for the trial court to determine the questions of fact therein and this court will not weigh the evidence or determine as to the credibility of witnesses. Adams v. Hansford, 130 Okla. 155, 265 P. 762; Betts v. Mills, 8 Okla. 351, 58 P. 957; Wetzel v. Rixse, 93 Okla. 216,220 P. 607. Counsel for plaintiff in error has suggested that the court should have applied the doctrine of the "last clear chance" and decided for defendant.

It is the well-established rule of this court that where a law action is tried to the court and there is a conflict in the evidence on the issues joined, the determination of the questions of fact therein is for the trial court, and the Supreme Court, on appeal, will not weigh the evidence or determine as to the credibility of the witnesses; that question being one for the trial court. Adams v. Hansford, 130 Okla. 155,265 P. 762. Where the evidence reasonably sustains the findings and judgment of the court, or where the evidence is conflicting, it will not be disturbed by this court. Wagg v. Herbert, 19 Okla. 525, 92 P. 250; Villines et ux. v. Conatser, 151 Okla. 144, 2 P.2d 1024.

The rule is well established that where a case is tried to the court, and there is a conflict in the evidence on the issues joined, determination of the questions therein is for the trial court, and the Supreme Court, on appeal, will not weigh the evidence or determine as to the credibility of the witness, that question being one for the trial court. Adams v. Hansford, 130 Okla. 155, 265 P. 762, and a long list of other decisions which it is unnecessary to cite here. Likewise, the appointment of a receiver under section 518, C. O. S. 1921 (O. S. 1931, section 773), is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge and an order appointing or refusing to appoint such receiver will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown.

Watashe v. Tiger, 88 Okla. 77, 211 P. 415. And if the court's conclusion reached thereon is supported by the evidence, the same will not be disturbed on appeal. Watashe v. Tiger, supra; Broswood Oil Gas Co. v. Mary Oil Gas Co., 164 Okla. 200, 23 P.2d 387; Adams v. Hansford, 130 Okla. 155, 265 P. 762; Mulkey v. Anglin, 166 Okla. 8, 25 P.2d 778. In this case there is competent evidence that the defendant had full knowledge of the failure of consideration, and that it did not rely upon the written waiver and receipt of April 11th, notwithstanding Mr. Hatton's testimony to the contrary.

"Where a case is tried to the court and there is a conflict in the evidence on the issues joined, determination of the questions of fact therein is for the trial court, and Supreme Court, on appeal, will not weigh the evidence or determine as to the credibility of the witnesses, that question being one for the trial court." Adams v. Hansford, 130 Okla. 155, 265 P. 762. This court in the case of Thomas v. Halsell, 63 Okla. 203, 164 P. 458, states: