sitting in place of MR. JUSTICE GALEN, absent on account of illness, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from an order admitting to probate the will of Mary W. Mahaffay, deceased. No reference is made in the will of the appellant who is the surviving husband of the decedent. He opposed the probate of the will on the ground that it was invalid under the provisions of section 6975, Revised Codes of 1921. This section reads: “A married woman make make a will in the same manner and with the same effect as if she were sole, except that such will shall not, without the written consent of her husband, operate to deprive him of more than two-thirds of her real estate, or of more than two-thirds of her personal estate. ’ ’

Outside of disposing of the property of the testatrix, the will names an executor, provides he shall pay her debts, funeral expenses and expenses of last illness from the funds of the estate, and revokes all former wills. These provisions are sufficient to entitle the will to probate under the authority of In re Hobbins’ Estate, 41 Mont. 39, 108 Pac. 7, it having been executed according to the requirements of the law.

“If the will be properly executed and proved it must be admitted to probate, although it contain not a single provision capable of execution, or valid under the law.” (Woerner on Administration, 3d ed., p. 775.) -After quoting the foregoing statement, the supreme court of Missouri, in Cox v. Cox, 101 *583 Mo. 172, 13 S. W. 1056, says: “This is the uniform doctrine both in this country and in England.”

Whatever the rights of the surviving husband may be in the decedent’s property, he is not without remedy.

The order is affirmed.

Affirmed.