It cannot be said that the evidence clearly preponderates against a finding of fact that, under all the circumstances of the case, plaintiff's crossing the street in the manner in which the court might well have found from the proofs that he did and his failure to see defendant's approaching automobile and take steps to avoid the accident constituted contributory negligence. The question is not whether the circuit court or this Court would have made the same finding of fact, but, rather, whether there was competent evidence to support it. Kellar v. United Metal Products Co., 338 Mich. 651. Cases considering the relative rights and duties of plaintiff pedestrians and defendant operators of motor vehicles coming together at street intersections, cited by plaintiff, are: Bartlett v. Melzo, 351 Mich. 177; Douglas v. Holcomb, 340 Mich. 43; Day v. Troyer, 341 Mich. 189; Wisnaski v. Afman, 341 Mich. 453; Bennett v. Hill, 342 Mich. 754. These are cases in which it was held that defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict on the grounds that plaintiff was guilty, as a matter of law, of contributory negligence.

This Court on 2 occasions since Michael v. Kircher was decided, has again considered this matter and upheld the conclusions in that decision. It should be noted that in Cummins v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 337 Mich. 629, there was conflicting testimony in the common pleas court, as a result of which we found that the evidence clearly preponderated against the finding and judgment of the common pleas court. That is not the situation in the instant case. Also, in Kellar v. United Metal Products Co., 338 Mich. 651, we again reaffirmed our decision in Michael v. Kircher, supra, after quoting at length from that decision. In affirming a judgment for the plaintiff entered in the common pleas court, we held (syllabus):

In cases of this nature, tried before the court without a jury, we do not reverse unless the evidence clearly preponderates against the finding on which the judgment entered is based. Vannett v. Michigan Public Service Co., 289 Mich. 212; Hall v. Horak, 329 Mich. 16; Kellar v. United Metal Products Company, 338 Mich. 651. The issues in the case were correctly determined in the circuit court, and the judgment entered there is affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.