The opinion
THOMAS, J.
The appeal is from an order granting a new trial where the evidence was in sharp conflict. That ruling and judgment was by the judge, who heard the oral examination of the witnesses. The same inference and-presumption in favor of this ruling or action in granting the new trial is indulged as in a case where the motion for a new trial is refused. Walker v. St. Louis-San F. R. Co., 214 Ala. 492 , 108 So. 388 ; Ex parte Landers, 214 Ala. 20 , 106 So. 225 ; Cobb v. Malone, 92 .Ala. 630, 9 So. 738 ; Nobles v. Bank of Eclectic, 217 Ala. 124 , 115 So. 13 .
We have carefully examined the evidence, and it is “not s.o manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict” as to “justify reversal of the order granting a new trial.” Smith v. Tombigbee & Northern R. Co., 141 Ala. 332 , 37 So. 389 ; Ex parte Landers, 214 Ala. 20 , 106 So. 225 .
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and BROWN, JJ., concur.