tion, together with other real estate, and also personal property.

His three children by such first marriage, and their representatives, are the plaintiffs in this action.

In November, 1893, he married Ida C. Moore, and there were born of this second marriage Erma, Harold, Henry, Jr. (all of whom are of age), and Wilbur, who was born March 5, 1900, and died intestate, unmarried, and without issue, on January 17, 1918. Said second wife and the surviving children of the second marriage are the defendants in this action.

After this second marriage, in March, 1894, said Henry Moore, his second wife joining therein, executed and delivered to Asa Moore, one of the plaintiffs, a child by the first marriage, a deed for 7 acres of land which Henry Moore owned at the time of the second marriage, and at the same time Asa Moore gave to Henry Moore a quitclaim deed, by which he attempted to release and quitclaim all of his right and title as heir of Henry Moore in the remaining property, real or personal, which Henry Moore then had or might thereafter acquire.

In April, 1896, Henry Moore, his second wife joining therein, deeded to Henrietta Thiessen, one of the plaintiffs, and a child by the first marriage, 8 acres of land, which he owned at the time of said second marriage, and she also gave to her father, Henry Moore, a quitclaim deed by which she attempted to quitclaim and release all her right and title as heir of her father in the remaining property, real or personal, which he then had or might thereafter acquire.

There was no such deed from the third child by the first marriage.

Several years later, and after the birth of the four children of the second marriage, the second wife, Ida C. Moore, sued Henry Moore for divorce and alimony. At that time Henry Moore owned a parcel of land known as the "two-acre tract," which was valuable lake-front property, and also a 54-acre tract, both of which are involved in this suit.

That divorce suit was settled by Henry Moore's deeding the 54-acre tract to his second wife, Ida C. Moore, and the four children of the second marriage, reserving a life estate for himself. That deed contained the following:

"The conveyance made to Ida C. Moore is a life estate in said premises, subject to the life estate hereinafter reserved to grantor. Subject to the life estate hereinafter reserved to grantor and the life estate conveyed to Ida C. Moore, the above described premises are hereby conveyed to said Erma Moore, Harold Moore, Henry Moore and Wilbur Moore, and any other children that may be born of their marriage to each other, in fee simple.”

There were no other children born.

In the agreement which Henry Moore and Ida C. Moore signed at the time the divorce case was settled and the deed made, there was a provision that if it should become necessary to sell all or any portion of the two-acre tract, for the purpose of supporting and maintaining themselves and their children, the wife agreed to execute deeds therefor releasing her dower therein.

That agreement provided also that the parties should return to their home and live together as man and wife, and "faithfully keep and perform all their marital duties towards each other," but four years later Ida C. Moore again sued Henry Moore for divorce and alimony.

In this second suit, the alimony settlement of the first suit was pleaded.

The second suit resulted in a decree of divorce granted to the wife for the aggressions of Henry Moore, and the decree as to alimony provided, in reference to said two-acre tract, that Henry Moore should "convey by good and sufficient deed, the real estate above described, to plaintiff for her natural life, and the fee of said real estate to said children (referring to the four children by the second marriage), absolutely, reserving in himself the use and possession and control of said property for his natural lifetime."

The decree also provided that on his failure to make the deed, the decree should operate as such conveyance. Henry Moore died in 1910 without having made said deed, but such decree was recorded in the recorder's office. Henry Moore left a will giving one dollar each to his three children by his first marriage, and leaving the balance of his property, without describing it in any way, to a trustee "for the benefit of Wilbur Moore, my youngest son by my second wife, and to place at his disposal when he reaches the age of twentyone," but he had no property at that time, unless it was the two-acre tract of land. An administrator of his estate was appointed, but nothing whatever

was done in reference to carrying out the terms of the will.

At the time of the decree of the court as to the two-acre tract, and at the time of the execution, delivery and recording of the deed of the 54-acre tract above mentioned, Wilbur Moore was living, and the title remained in that condition until he died intestate, unmarried and without issue.

The claim of the children by the first marriage as to the 54-acre tract is that Wilbur Moore acquired a one-fourth interest therein not by purchase but by deed of gift from the father, and that upon the death of Wilbur, his interest descended under Section 8573, General Code, to the brothers and sisters of the whole and half blood, and that therefore they are part owners of said interest, while the defendants claim that it descended under Section 8574, General Code, to the brothers and sisters of the whole blood, and that therefore plaintiffs have no interest therein.

The deed in question was executed and delivered under the circumstances above set forth in settlement of the divorce proceedings brought by the mother of Wilbur against the grantor in the deed, the father of Wilbur.

The consideration recited in the deed is as follows:

"For divers good causes and consideration thereunto moving, and especially for the sum of one dollar received to my full satisfaction of Ida C. Moore, Erma Moore, Harold Moore, Henry Moore, Wilbur Moore, and any child the fruit of the present marriage relation between Henry Moore and Ida C. Moore hereinafter born, the grantees," etc.

to

The only disputed question of fact is as whether or not one dollar was actually paid. The deed recites that it was paid by several, one of whom was Wilbur. In a case like this where the only object of parol evidence on the subject of consideration is to affect the course of descent, parol testimony is not competent to show that that which the deed recites was done was not in fact done.

The deed states that the grantor has "Given, granted, remised, released and forever quitclaimed," and does "absolutely give, grant, remise, release and forever quitclaim unto the grantees, the several interests hereinafter stated, their heirs and assigns forever," and that the premises, subject to life estates, are "hereby conveyed to * Wilbur Moore * ** in fee simple."

These are the operative words of conveyance of the deed, and the consideration expressed therefor in the deed is "divers good causes and consideration thereunto moving, and especially for the sum of one dollar received to my full satisfaction of * * * Wilbur Moore."

The consideration so expressed cannot be denied by parol evidence for the purpose of changing the line of descent. Groves v. Groves, 65 Ohio St., 442; Patterson v. Lamson, 45 Ohio St., 77; Brown v. Whaley, 58 Ohio St., 654; Cowden v. Cowden, 28 C. C., 71, and Shehy v. Cunningham, 81 Ohio St., 289.

The syllabus in the Shehy case, supra, is as

follows: