#### Michael Kramp et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Louis Thexton et al., Defendants in Error.

Gen. No. 21,673.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William Fenimoke Cooper, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 10, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Suit by Michael Kramp et al., complainants, against Louis Thexton et al., defendants, to foreclose a'mortgage. To review an order setting aside a personal deficiency decree . entered against Louis Thexton, the complainants prosecute a writ of error.

This case was before the Appellate Court on a former- appeal in Kramp v. Kramp, 185 Ill. App. 464, wherein a decree, ordering that certain premises in which Louis Thexton owned the equity be sold subject to a first mortgage to pay a second mortgage, was affirmed. After sale of the premises an order was entered in the Superior Court approving the sale, and a personal deficiency judgment was entered against Louis Thexton and the one who had executed the second mortgage. On motion by Louis Thexton an order *509was entered by another judge of the Superior Court, modifying the decree by setting it aside so far as it made Louis Thexton liable for the deficiency. To review that order the complainants prosecute this writ of error.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Courts—when Superior Court power to vacate order or decree. The Superior Court has the discretionary power at any time during the term at which an order or decree in a cause has heen entered, whether it be interlocutory or final, to vacate and set it aside for such cause as may be necessary to promote justice.

2. Courts—when judge of Superior Court power to set aside judgment entered by another judge. A judge of the Superior Court has the power in a proper case to set aside a personal deficiency judgment entered in foreclosure proceedings by another judge of the same court during the same term at which the motion therefor is made.

3. Mortgages, § 635 * —when personal deficiency decree properly set aside. Where the record in a foreclosure suit showed that one against whom a personal deficiency decree had been' entered had taken the real estate in question subject to incumbrances and had not assumed them, there being no allegations in the bill of complaint and no finding prior to the decree of sale of any personal liability on his part, held that the decree was properly set aside on his motion.

Hamlin & Topliff, for plaintiffs in error.

Harvey Strickler, for defendants in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice McGoorty

delivered the opinion of the court.