The deceased and Marguerite Dutrech were married at Bordeaux, France, in the year 1838.

In view of the marriage they entered into a contract, which contained the following covenants:

Jean and Marie Baubichon (afterward Marie Beyselance), the issue of said marriage, were born at Bordeaux in the years 1840 and 1842, respectively; in 1870-—-and prior to the death of Jean Baptiste, the deceased—the wife, Marguerite, departed this life.

The deceased died in San Francisco, whither he removed, his family remaining in France, prior to the death of his wife, leaving a last will and testament in words and figures following:

His son and daughter contested the distribution of the estate in the Probate Court of San Francisco, on the ground, that—by virtue of the ante-nuptial contract and the laws of France—the decedent could devise, bequeath, or dispose of only one third part of the estate in his name and possession; the contestants claiming that they were entitled to two thirds.

We think the last clause of the fourth article of the ante-nuptial contract is applicable only to the fourth article. To attach it to, and by construction make it a part of the third, would render that article contradictory, since, by the express terms of the third article, “the whole of the acquisitions ” was to belong to the survivor of the spouses, *28 in full property and use, whether there should be any children of the marriage or not.

It is claimed, however, that—without reference to the last clause of the fourth article—the French law entered into and became part of the contract, and by that law the contestants acquired rights which could not be divested by the contract, made in anticipation of the marriage; that the contestants w'ere forced heirs, and could not thus be deprived of their inheritance.

It was admitted at the argument that the contestants would have no standing in a California Court, save for the ante-nuptial contract; but this admission was accompanied by the claim that the contract was void in so far as it attempted to deprive the children of the marriage of the share of the community property to which they were entitled as forced heirs.

The statement of the position taken by the contestants, indicates that their claim is not based on the contract, but is asserted against the contract.

The contestants urge, although the instrument (as they assert,) is void as against their claim to two thirds of the estate, and although they can claim only through the instrument void in the particular named, yet because the contract is to be interpreted in the light of the French law, this Court should determine that they are entitled to the same share that they would be held to be entitled to in a French Court, had the deceased died at the domicile of the marriage. But this is merely to ask that we should order the estate to be distributed, not in accordance with our own, but in accordance with the foreign law.

It was expressly admitted, and we think correctly admitted, that we are only authorized to direct distribution, in the absence of an ante-nuptial contract, in the manner required by the statutes of our State.

Decree affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.