The rule is well established that where an action of legal cognizance is tried to the court without a jury, 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 the credibility of the witnesses, that being the province of the trial court. Stephens v. Mortgage Bond Co., 170 Okla. 111, 38 P.2d 930. Accordingly the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

"Where a case is tried by 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 the Supreme Court, on appeal, will not weigh the evidence or determine as to the credibility of the witnesses, that question being for the trial court." Stephens v. Mortgage Bond Co., 170 Okla. 111, 38 P.2d 930; Yellow Taxicab Baggage Co. v. New, 170 Okla. 334, 40 P.2d 651. We are of the opinion, after a careful review of the entire record, that the trial court reached a proper conclusion in the case, and the judgment of the lower court is in all things affirmed.

In this connection, appellants' conduct is, of course, considered together with all the evidence in the case and with the relief granted by the trial court. Upon the question of acceptance of rescission by appellants Moore, the following authorities are in point: Pardoe v. Jones, 161 Iowa 426, 143 N.W. 405; Stephens v. Bond, 155 Ga. 20, 115 S.E. 913. We find no error in the decree of the trial court entered in favor of respondent in the rescission action.

McMillan v. Benfield, supra at 457 (4). See also Lytle v. Scottish American Mtg. Co., supra; Stephens v. Bond, 155 Ga. 20 ( 115 S.E. 913) (1922). Accordingly, it was error to grant appellee summary judgment as to appellant's "restitution" claim.