This is an appeal from an order denying probate to the will of deceased.

The will was made on June 3, 1921. The next day, to wit, June 4, 1921, the testator married the contestant.

The will was contested on the ground that it was revoked by the provisions of section 1299 of the Civil Code, which are as follows:

The wife he married on June 4, 1921, he continued to live with as such until his death, which occurred on November 2, 1921.

The material portions of the will are as follows, to wit:

It will be noted that by the fourth paragraph of the will the testator expressly provides that if “any person whomsoever who, if I died intestate, would be entitled to any part of my estate,” except the two persons named as heirs in the previous part of the will, should “seek to establish or assert any claim to my estate, or any part thereof, excepting under this will,”'or shall attack or seek to set it aside, or secure any part of his estate other than through or under the will, he or they shall receive one dollar and no more in lieu of any share or interest in his estate, and all the rest of the interest which would otherwise have gone to such person by inheritance he gives to his father.

This clause does not mention his wife. It is obvious, however, that she is included by the phrase, “any person whomsoever, who if I died intestate would be entitled to any part of my estate.” In fact, so far as appears, she and the unborn child were the only persons who are included therein. Respondent contends that because when the will was made the day before, she was not the wife of the testator, there could not have been any intention to make provision for her as his wife. No reason is perceived why the wife could not be “mentioned” by any description that would include her. Certainly it would not be necessary to mention her by name and to include her, as she was included, in the description of a class, “mentions” her as effectually as if she had been named therein. He must have contemplated that such person might establish her claim to a share of the estate, for he provides that in such event all of the share shall go to his father except one dollar. It is therefore to be supposed that his wife would be included. The fact that she was not his wife when he made the will is of no significance, He was speaking of a future event, the descent that would be cast upon his death, and he could provide for the persons who might be then interested, though not so at the time, by the statement that they should have only a part of that which they would otherwise take.

The appellant sought to show that at the time the will was made the testator was already engaged to be married to the contestant, as indeed would almost be presumed so short a time before, but the court sustained an objection of the respondent to the evidence. This was clearly error. It was admissible for the purpose of showing who the maker of the will intended to include by the phrase “any person whomsoever who, if I died intestate, would be entitled to any part of my estate,” a phrase which, if he had not been then engaged to marry the contestant, would be somewhat ambiguous, but which would be made certain by showing the fact of such engagement. Evidence is always admis» sible to show extrinsic facts which serve to explain the meaning of ambiguous words appearing on the face of a will, and this evidence was admissible for that purpose.

The wife of the testator is therefore “provided for” in the will.

Section 1298 of the Civil Code is as follows, to wit:

One of the grounds of contest was that Helen H. Kurtz, the widow, was, at the time of filing the objections to its probate, encemie, and that the testator was the father of the child. Section 29 of the Civil Code provides that “a child conceived, but not yet born, is to be deemed an existing person, so far as may be necessary to its interests in the event of its subsequent birth.” This child would come in the same category as its mother; if it should be born alive, it would then inherit a part of its father’s estate; in fact it would inherit all of it that did not go to the mother, and it would be affected by the same provision, if it should set up a claim thereto, and would receive only one dollar of its share, the residue going to the father of William Kurtz.

The will should therefore have been admitted to probate.

The question whether the wife has any rights in the estate, notwithstanding the will, cannot be presented on this ' appeal.

The order is reversed.

Lennon, J., Wilbur, J., Shurtleff, J., Sloane, J., Lawlor,1 J., and Waste, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

All the Justices present concurred.