This is an appeal from a judgment which awards a recovery of $132,773.05 in favor of Oat Valley Lumber Company against The Stoneson Development Company and which decrees that Stoneson recover nothing on its cross-complaints against Oat Valley Lumber Company, San Bruno Lumber Company, Inc., Arnold Sleveland and James Cagle, individually and as copartners doing business under the firm name of Oat Valley Lumber Company, a copartnership, H. H. Bowden, doing business as H. H. Bowden Lumber Company, and Mario Ottonello.

The litigation began with the filing by Oat Valley Lumber Company, a corporation, of an action against Stoneson for the agreed price of 63 loads of lumber alleged to have been sold and delivered to Stoneson during the period between May 16, 1956, and October 5, 1956. Stoneson answered denying generally all the allegations of the complaint. It also filed a cross-complaint against Oat Valley Lumber Company, a copartnership, predecessor of Oat Valley Lumber Company, a corporation ; against Oat Valley Lumber Company, a corporation; and Sleveland and Cagle seeking recover of $100,000 damages based on allegations of fraud. It cross-complained further against San Bruno Lumber Company and against Bowden Lumber Company for damages in the sum of $75,000 and $35,000 respectively based on allegations of fraud. It cross-complained further against Cagle, Ottonello and all other cross-defendants, including San Bruno Lumber Company, for the sum of $210,000 based on allegations of conspiracy to commit fraud. In addition to actual damages, Stoneson prayed *54 for 50 per cent damages in addition as punitive damages. All of the cross-actions claimed that the cross-defendants, acting in conspiracy, had invoiced appellants for deliveries of lumber not made and upon such invoices had been paid. An amended cross-complaint was filed, specifying particular loads of lumber which Stoneson claimed it had not received but for which it had been billed and for which it had paid. This list totaled 64 loads, but at trial 27 of these were conceded to have been received by Stoneson and only 37 were challenged. Answers to the cross-complaints were filed denying generally any liability in respect thereof. After partial trial, and during a period of continuance for further trial, Stoneson filed an amendment to its amended cross-complaint alleging for the first time that certain loads of lumber which it admitted receiving, and some loads it had theretofore denied receiving were fraudulently short in quantity and defective in quality and it added allegations that three more loads of lumber paid for had not been delivered. The final pleadings in cross actions for damages for fraud then stood so that the several counts in the cross-complaint sought the following recoveries against the following defendants: (1) Oat Valley Lumber Company, a copartnership, $95,232.41 plus $30,000 punitive damages; (2) Oat Valley Lumber Company, a corporation, $89,733.74 plus punitive damages in the sum of $22,500; (3) San Bruno Lumber Company, $114,216.13 plus $50,000 punitive damages; (4) Bowden Lumber Company, $32,677.17 plus $16,000 punitive damages; (5) accumulatively against all cross-defendants $331,859.45 plus punitive damages in the sum of $118,500.

Trial was resumed and after the filing of extensive briefs, the court rendered its opinion and order for findings from which we quote the following:

(We will here reduce to narrative form the question and answer testimony appearing in the record and quoted in extenso in the court’s opinion.)

The process in handling invoices was that I received them first, then checked to see that the material had been delivered, and then attached tags to the back of the invoices and checked to see who it was received by. All of them had to be signed or were supposed to be signed and that was our orders from the main office. Then I would code them out and Mr. Wells would O. K. them and check them over and send them back to the main office. We did that in each instance. As far as I know all of the invoices crossed my desk. Before invoices were received from the principal office of Stoneson I had in our files evidence of delivery of lumber. If we didn’t we would ask to make sure it had been delivered. We did this by calling up the various lumber companies and asking them to bring out a copy of the tags they had gotten signed out in the yard. They were always checked. . . . You would have to be there to see all the lumber that came into this yard in order to know as much came in as it did. It is unbelievable, you wouldn’t know unless you were working around there as to how many truck and trailer loads would come into that lot that would go into various houses and units. Mr. Wells on occasion would go out and interview people in the yard to make sure that certain deliveries were in fact actually made. Once in a while I would go out and cheek, too, if Jack—especially if a tag would come into the office and it hadn’t been signed I would try to check it right away and go out and see who received the load, who *57 might have absentmindedly forgotten to sign the tag. . . . We were always supposed to have delivery tags in back of the invoices signed delivery tag showing it had been received or else have some proof or signature, like, for instance, Oat Valley would bring down signed copies of delivery tags . . . showing it had been received by someone out in the yard. Otherwise I believe if they ever went up to the main office without a signature they would either call back or they would send it back down to us and we would check them out and see what they were. All the invoices came across my desk before they were processed out of the tract office. As far as I know all of the lumber represented by the invoices which were approved by the tract office for payment and sent back to the head office of Stoneson represented merchandise, lumber or other supplies actually received and delivered.

After findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment were signed a motion for new trial was made and denied, but the court ordered the case reopened and resubmitted. The court rendered its second opinion and order for findings, the significant portion of which reads:

The findings of fact found that the 63 loads sued upon by Oat Valley were delivered and the amount owing for the same was due ■ that Stoneson’s allegations of fraudulent representations on the part of respondents as to delivery, or deficient delivery in quantity or quality were not true; that the lumber sold and delivered was of the quantity and quality set forth in the respective invoices and that it was not true that Stoneson was damaged in any amount.

Our review of the record in the light of the briefs on file has led us to the conclusion that the findings of the trial court are substantially supported in every particular. If it be conceded that the records introduced by Stoneson and the inferences to be drawn therefrom make prima facie proof of misdealing on the part of plaintiff and of the several cross-defendants, it is apparent that we have here nothing more than a conflict in evidence and under the well-known rule the judgment cannot be reversed. The situation presented by the record is aptly described in those portions of the opinions of the trial court from which we have quoted. We have studied the extensive briefs filed by appellant Stoneson and have examined the record sufficiently to establish that the evidence at best is in conflict upon every disputed point. We think it unnecessary to treat of these matters in extenso.

*61 Appellant in its brief places its emphasis upon its cross-complaints for fraud and says: “ It clearly appears that the trial Court, in xveighing the evidence, held the Appellants to a degree of proof far greater than the required preponderance. Further, the trial Court, contrary to existing California laxv, apparently required direct proof of the fraud charged and ignored the circumstantial evidence presented. The laxv is clear that fraud may be proved by circumstantial evidence and that the one charged xvith sustaining the burden of proof is entitled to the assistance of such presumptions and inferences that may be raised by the facts produced in proof. ’ ’ We are unable to see any ground for the charge that the trial court held appellants to a degree of proof greater than the required preponderance. On the contrary, and based upon substantial evidentiary support, the trial court declared flatly that the preponderance of proof lay xvith the cross-defendants and the facts and circumstances noted by the trial court in the making of that assertion abundantly support the same. Noxvhere does it appear that the trial court required direct proof of fraud and ignored circumstantial evidence in proof thereof. On the contrary, it clearly appears that the trial court weighed the circumstantial proof and, placing it against the direct testimony that the deliveries claimed for were made, that the quantities paid for were received, and that the quality contracted for had been delivered, and having so placed the circumstantial evidence against the direct evidence, concluded that the preponderance of proof lay with the direct evidence. For instance, as noted by the trial court on the question of quality, that is, that lumber required to be Number 2 or better had been less than Number 2 in substantial quantities, the trial court noted the testimony of Stoneson’s employee, to the effect that the quantity and quality of the lumber had been inspected as received, and noted further the testimony of the witness who had inspected the 450 houses constructed by Stoneson by the use of lumber received from Oat Valley and others that, as required by the law governing such construction, the lumber used was Number 2 and better.

For the reasons given, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Peek, J., and Schottky, J., concurred.