defeat the design so expressed by imagining that he must not have anticipated the contingency of her decease first. The distributive share enJoyed by the testator came from her estate and under this construction appropriately Is taken under the will by her children.Affirmed.accepting a deed from his grandfather recited to be in consideration of his release of all claims as heir of grantor is bound by the release.Eti. Note.For other cases Nike Free Run see Descent and Distribution DECLARATIONS.On the question whether deceased after making a deed to his grandson in consideration of release of all claims as his heir changed his mind and consented in writing claimed to be lost that the grandson should not be bound by the release but should on the grandfather's death share equally with the other heirs in the estate evidence as to the state of his mind in the meantime Polo Outlet Online on the subject including bis declaration thereon is competent as bearing on the probability of the matter.Ed. Nike Shop Note.For other cases see Lost Instruments As bearing on the weight of testimony that Ralph Lauren Outlet Online deceased executed an instrument claimed to have been lost freeing his grandson from the effect of his release of rights in deceased's estatej the fact that in prior proceedings affecting his rights in the estate the grandson made no claim of any such instrument Nike Max Air but denied that he had executed a release and asserted that deceased was mentally incompetent about the time said second instrument is claimed to Nike Max Air 90 have been executed is a matter for consideration as being against common experience.Ed. Note.For other cases see Evidence Direct testimony of the execution of an instrument claimed to have been lost may be negatived The North Face Outlet by Nike Free circumstances showing the improbability thereof.Ed. NoteFor other cases see Evidence Evidence in a suit for partition of intestate's estate heldto negative the claimed execution of an instrument by deceased freeing a grandson from his release of right in the estate.Ed. Note.For other cases see Lost Instruments Cent. DigDec. DigAppeal from District Court Lee County; W. S. Hamilton Judge.Action in partition. Decree In the court below affirmed. Affirmed.Hughes & McCoid of Keokuk for appellant. John E. Craig and Holllugsworth InBlood all of Keokuk and Lutz & Jordan of Belolt Kan for appellees.GAYNOR Ralph Lauren Outlet J. This Is a suit In equity The North Face Outlet Store to partition real estate. The parties to the action are the children and grandchildren of one A W. Harlan deceased who was the owner of the property during his lifetime. The suit is brought by his daughter Mrs. Euilllne Chidester Frank Harlan a son and Vivian C. Harlan Intervener joined with Emiline Chidester in her prayer for partition. These three under the record now made claim to be the sole owners of the property lu controversy and each claims to own an undivided onethird interest therein. Frank Harlan is a son of deceased. Vivian C. Harlan is a son of Albert Harlan deceased who was a son of A W. Harlan deceased. Mark T. North Face Outlet Harlan is a grandson of A. W. Harlan deceased and North Face Outlet Store is the only sou and heir of Justin B. Harlan who died on AprilIn this partition suit as it was tried and submitted to the court the claim Nike Argentina was made by this daughter Emiline Chidester Frank Harlan and the grandson Vivian C. Harlan that Mark T. Harlan had no interest in the land to be partitioned and no right to participate In the Polo Ralph Lauren Outlet proceeds of the land for the reason that prior to the death of A. W. Harlan he had executed and delivered to Mark two deeds one in S conveying to Markacres of land and another