In the cited case undue influence was charged to strangers to the blood of testator who took as beneficiaries. It was contended in Toombs v. Matthesen, 206 Okla. 139, 241 P.2d 937, 941, that the "activities of the defendant raises the presumption of undue influence which shifts the burden of proof, which is normally upon the contestants, to the proponent." This contention was rejected.

That is the time which is material on both of the issues of testamentary capacity and undue influence. In re Martin's Estate, Okla., 261 P.2d 603, citing In re Shipman's Estate, 184 Okla. 56, 85 P.2d 317; In re Baker's Will, 207 Okla. 158, 248 P.2d 627; Toombs v. Matthesen, 206 Okla. 139, 241 P.2d 937. The record shows, and the trial court found, no evidence of facts determinative of either of these issues to bear out, or support, contestant's contentions, and the judgment of the trial court cannot be said to be clearly against the weight of the evidence. In accord with the foregoing, it is hereby affirmed.

15 O.S.A. § 24 [ 15-24]; In re Nitey's Estate, 175 Okla. 389, 53 P.2d 215. It is sufficient if the testator can understand and carry in mind in a general way the nature and situation of his property and his relations to those who naturally have some claim to his remembrance and those in whom and the things in which he has been chiefly interested. In re McClure v. Kerchner, 107 Okla. 28, 229 P. 589; Toombs v. Matthesen, 206 Okla. 139, 241 P.2d 937. The ability to transact business is not the true test of testamentary capacity. In re Tayrien's Estate, 117 Okla. 216, 246 P. 400.

The only noticeable weakness of the testatrix at the time she executed the will in question, as disclosed by a careful search of the record, was that of failing eyesight. The contestant did not discharge the burden of proof placed upon her and the lower courts were correct in so holding. This question has recently been before this court and was fully discussed in the case of Toombs v. Matthesen, 206 Okla. 139, 241 P.2d 937. The judgment is affirmed.