
    DEATON v. HAMILTON COUNTY.
    (No. 6211.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
    Feb. 18, 1920.
    Rehearing Denied April 28, 1920.)
    Appeal and error <§=>1011(1) — Findings on conflicting evidence not disturbed, unless contrary to overwhelming weight.
    Findings by the trial-judge on material issues as to which there was a conflict in the testimony involved passing on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, and such findings will not be disturbed on appeal, though against-the testimony of the more numerous witnesses, unless contrary to overwhelming weight of the testimony.
    Appeal from District Court, Hamilton County; J. H. Arnold, Judge.
    Suit by mandatory injunction by J. S. Deaton against Hamilton County. -Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Thurman, Nicholson & Saxon, of Dallas, for appellant.
    S. R. Allen, J. I-I. Eidson, and L. Braun, all of Hamilton, for appellee.
   KEY, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Hamilton county, refusing to award to the plaintiff, J. S. Deaton, a mandatory injunction requiring the county to remove and reconstruct a certain bridge over a stream on a certain public road in that county.

The trial judge made findings of fact, which in all material respects are supported by testimony. On some of the material issues there was conflict in the testimony, and as to more than one of the questions more witnesses testified in favor of appellant; but the trial judge, for reasons satisfactory to him, seems to have accepted as true and given credence to the testimony submitted on behalf of the county. In pursuing that course, the trial judge passed upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony; and it is well-settled law in this state that, unless a finding of fact made by a judge or jury is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the testimony, it will not be disturbed on appeal. This case falls within that class. The facts found by the trial judge required and support the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Hamilton county, and that judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      ®=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     