The testator had a stroke, which left her bedridden and paralyzed, and she permanently lived in the daughter's home. On the other hand, we failed to find a confidential relationship between a grantor and his nephew in Phillips v. Phillips, 1964 OK 214, ¶ 18, 395 P.2d 803. There, the nephew frequently visited his uncle and helped him after he fell ill. Rather than a confidential relationship, we determined that there was merely fondness between family members.

In a similar situation, involving an attempted cancellation of a deed from an uncle to two nephews, this court has held that the mere existence of kinship, whether by affinity or consanguinity, does not necessarily give rise to a confidential relationship; and that the validity or invalidity of a deed from one kin to another depends upon whether there actually was a confidential relationship between them and whether or not such relationship was abused. Phillips, Admx. v. Phillips et al., Okla., 395 P.2d 803. The plaintiffs did not prove facts sufficient to show the existence of a confidential relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

This is a case of equitable cognizance and this court will examine and weigh evidence, but the judgment of trial court will not be disturbed unless it appears that such judgment is against the clear weight of the evidence. Roddy v. Roddy, Okla., 288 P.2d 1117; Phillips v. Phillips, Okla., 395 P.2d 803. The controlling question is whether person creating account intentionally and intelligently created essential elements of joint ownership and survivorship. Dyer v. Vann, Okla., 359 P.2d 1061; Hendricks v. Grant County Bank, Okla., 379 P.2d 693. The fact that deceased was the source of all funds, that Mrs. Conrad suggested the joint tenancy arrangements, that deceased was a man of advanced years, that there was a blood relationship between deceased and Mrs. Conrad, and that Mrs. Conrad did not treat the funds as belonging to her during deceased's lifetime are all circumstances which assist in determining the intention but none are controlling. Green v. Comer, 193 Okla. 133, 141 P.2d 258; Barton v. Hooker, Okla., 283 P.2d 514; Hadwiger v. Melkus, Okla., 365 P.2d 726; Stoner v. Farber, Okla., 263 P.2d 159. The order of the County Court in the matter of the estate of the deceased is not, in our opinion, such order for disclosure as would be prima facie evidence of the right of the admin

It is well settled that this court will not disturb the findings of the trial court on issues of fact, in an action of equitable cognizance, unless they are clearly against the weight of the evidence. Phillips v. Phillips, Okla., 395 P.2d 803; Bowen v. Hamilton, Okla., 393 P.2d 858. We believe the evidence reasonably supports the findings of the trial court that there was no fraud or misrepresentation in behalf of Mrs. Johnston.

As respects the argument concerning the presumed insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment, the rule is that in an equity case this Court will examine the entire record, but the trial court's finding and judgment will not be reversed unless clearly against the weight of the evidence. Ruble v. Phillips Pet. Co., Okla., 385 P.2d 116; Looney v. Chastain, Okla., 395 P.2d 571; Phillips v. Phillips, Okla., 395 P.2d 803. Examination of the record herein discloses substantial, competent evidence to support the trial court's findings and judgment. The second ground of argument under plaintiffs' first proposition urges that the defect in the summons issued for defendant in the 1935 foreclosure action was simply an irregularity and insufficient to make.