In a law action tried before a judge without a jury we do not reverse unless it appears that the disposition of the controversy was contrary to a preponderance of the proof. Allen v. Currier Lumber Company, 337 Mich. 696; Moller v. Sirhal, 342 Mich. 391; Zarzecki v. Hatch, 347 Mich. 138 (62 ALR2d 284).

It has been repeatedly stated that this Court will not substitute its judgment in such a case unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction. Patton v. Oakman, 298 Mich. 672; Mallory v. Pitcairn, 307 Mich. 40; Rose v. Paint Manufacturers, Inc., 311 Mich. 428; Moller v. Sirhal, 342 Mich. 391; Zarzecki v. Hatch, 347 Mich. 138 (62 ALR2d 284).

lio Marrocco Construction Company. It is plaintiff's claim that it acted in reliance upon such representation by obtaining a Dunn and Bradstreet report on Tullio Marrocco Construction Company, and thereafter set up a ledger account in the name of Tullio Marrocco Construction Company, finally sending statements to that company; that as a result of the failure of the last carload to be paid they have been damaged. This Court has stated many times the proposition that it will not disturb the findings of the lower court who had the opportunity to hear the witnesses testify, observe their demeanor on the stand, and who certainly, normally, would be in a better position to judge the truth of their testimony than this Court, excepting in the instances where the testimony clearly preponderates against the finding of the lower court. Jones v. Eastern Michigan Motorbuses, 287 Mich. 619; Eagan v. Edwards, 294 Mich. 260; Mahoney v. Lincoln Brick Co., 304 Mich. 694; Green v. Woods, 325 Mich. 649; Moller v. Sirhal, 342 Mich. 391; Zarecki v. Hatch, 347 Mich. 138 (62 ALR2d 284).