
    Marguerite Springer, Executrix, Appellant, v. Wallace L. DeWolf et al., Appellees.
    Gen. No. 20,929.
    (Not to foe reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Look-wood Honore, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed June 10, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Claim by Wallace L. DeWolf, Mary F. Kellogg and Lucy E. Bell, against estate of Warren Springer, deceased, and Marguerite Springer, as executrix of the will of said Warren Springer, defendants.
    Claimants recovered a judgment in the Circuit Court May 27, 1912, against the estate of Warren Springer, deceased, and Marguerite Springer, his executrix, for $25,000. A copy of the judgment order was filed in the Probate Court as a claim against the estate of Warren Springer and allowed July 24, 1912, for $25,190.97 as of class seven, to be paid in due course of administration. After the expiration of the judgment term the judgment was amended by striking out the words “Estate of Warren Springer, deceased,” and adding the words, “as a claim of the seventh class, to be paid in due course of administration.” Before the amendment was made, a copy of the judgment ofi the Circuit Court entered May 27, 1912, was filed in the Probate Court as a proof of the claim of the plaintiffs in the judgment against the estate of Warren Springer. After the judgment was amended, the claimants, by leave of the Probate Court, filed a copy of the amended judgment order as an amendment to their proof of claim as of the date of the filing of their claim.
    Marguerite Springer as executrix of the will of Warren Springer, deceased, filed in the Probate Court her petition praying that the order and judgment of that court entered July 24, 1912, allowing the claim of appellees as claimants against the estate of Warren Springer as of class seven for $25,190.97 he vacated and set aside. The prayer of the petition was denied and the petition dismissed, and the executrix prayed and was allowed an appeal to the Circuit Court. In that court the order of the Prohate Court appealed from was “confirmed,” the prayer of the petition denied and the petition dismissed. This appeal is prosecuted from the order of the Circuit Court. See Springer v. DeWolf, ante, p. 58.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Judgment, § 252
      
      —when amendment proper. The court may, after the expiration of the judgment term, permit a judgment, recovered against the estate of a decedent and his executrix, to he amended by striking out the words, “Estate of * * *, deceased,” and adding the words, “as a claim of the seventh class, to be paid in due course • of administration,” the amendment being one of form only.
    2. Executors and administbatobs, § 227*—when amendment of proof of claim, properly allowed. Where the judgment on which a proof of claim is based is amended after the proof is filed, it is proper to allow the amendment of the proof of claim by filing a copy of the judgment order as amended.
    Eugene M. Bumphrey, for appellant.
    George W. Wilbur and William T. Alden, for appellees.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.  