We also agree with contestants that the words 'and their claims upon her' should have been added to the second sentence of the definition of testamentary capacity. See Morris v. Morris, Com.App., 279 S.W. 806 (holding approved); Breeding v. Naler, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 888 (writ dism.). Doctors Mehmert and Phillips examined Mrs. Lindley for the first time on January 19, 1960, but this was not so remote as to preclude these witnesses from expressing their opinion, based on reasonable medical probability, regarding her condition when the will was executed five months earlier.

Where there is evidence of an unsound mind incapable of knowing and understanding the effects of his act in making a will, knowing the objects of his bounty and their claims upon him and the general nature and extent of his property, then it is not necessary that the evidence show that any particular insane delusion was directly operative as a producing cause of the will. See Peareson v. McNabb, Tex.Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 402; Breeding v. Naler, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 888; Walston v. Mabry, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W.2d 1014. We believe that all of the evidence taken together, including that of the witnesses who observed the behavior and heard the statements of George Caldwell, and the manner and method of the actual execution of the will itself and of the surrounding circumstances thereof, are sufficient to support the verdict of the jury and Points 1 and 2 are overruled.

In determining this question, we may consider only the testimony favorable to the jury's verdict and must disregard all evidence to the contrary. Chambers v. Winn, 137 Tex. 444, 154 S.W.2d 454; Breeding v. Naler, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 888; Polser v. Polser, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 542, Ref.W.M. Hector H. Hickman was 44 years of age at the time of his death on November 26, 1948. He was survived by his wife and infant child who are appellees in this case, and was seized and possessed of real estate and personal property of the probable value of $35,000.

This court is unable to uphold appellant's objections to the quoted charge; to the contrary, it finds no fault with that statement of the law when applied to the pleadings and evidence before the court, holding that it squares with the authoritative deliverances of our Texas courts especially, as well as those of sister states, upon the legal equivalent of the same sort of case. Morris v. Morris, Tex.Com.App., 279 S.W. 806; Breeding v. Naler, Tex. Civ. App. 120 S.W.2d 888, error dismissed; Prather v. McClelland, 76 Tex. 574, 13 S.W. 543; Rodgers v. Fleming, Tex Com. App., 3 S.W.2d 77, reversing Rodgers v. Fleming, Tex. Civ. App. 295 S.W. 327; Vance v. Upson, 66 Tex. 476, 1 S.W. 179. Neither can appellant's claims that the jury's verdict was either without any evidence to support it, without sufficient evidence, or so against the preponderance of the testimony as a whole as to be clearly wrong, be sustained.

In such determination, it is our duty to reject all evidence favorable to appellant's contention and consider only that sustaining the verdict rendered. Breeding v. Naler, Tex. Civ. App. 120 S.W.2d 888. Mr. Polser suffered two heavy strokes of paralysis, the first in December, 1940, and the next in March, 1942; his death following on June 2.

It is accordingly held to be error for the court to give a general charge on the law of the case where same is submitted upon special issues. Breeding v. Naler, Tex. Civ. App. 120 S.W.2d 888, 891 (second column) and authorities there cited. Appellant's liability in this case depended upon the answer of the jury to said first special issue.