Defendant, as executor of the estate of Ellen M. Wilson, deceased, appeals from a judgment based upon a suit upon a creditor’s claim. The amount of the judgment was fifteen thousand dollars.

Mrs. Wilson died in 1907. By her will all of her property Was disposed of in a manner ignoring her niece, the plaintiff herein, her son, defendant herein, being the principal beneficiary under the testament.

The will was admitted to probate in May, 1907, and within the statutory time plaintiff presented a creditor’s claim for twenty-five thousand dollars for personal services rendered her aunt, Mrs. Ellen M. Wilson, under a specific contract. It Was set forth in the said claim that the services were rendered from August 6,1902, to the time of Mrs. Wilson’s death. This claim having been rejected by defendant, as executor of the estate of his mother, suit thereon was entered on June 10,1908. The original complaint was amended in 1909, as appellant contends, by abandoning the original contract as alleged in the creditor’s claim and counting upon one entirely different— a contention which we shall presently examine in detail. Upon the amended complaint two trials were held before juries, each trial resulting in a substantial verdict in favor of plaintiff, but each judgment was on motion set aside andm new trial was granted. Upon the third trial, in 1916, at which another judge presided, plaintiff was permitted to file a new amended complaint and was again victorious before a jury. No motion for a new trial was made, but this appeal is prosecuted from the judgment;

Appellant makes a number of specifications of alleged error based upon the supposed radical difference between the original cause of action set forth in the complaint and that upon which issue was finally joined and trial was had resulting in the last verdict. Among other assertions of appellant is one to the effect that the new cause of action pleaded in the last amended complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.

In the original complaint it was alleged in substance that in 1902 Mrs. Ellen M. Wilson repeatedly represented to plaintiff ’s parents and sisters, who resided in Iowa, and to plaintiff herself, who had farming land in North Dakota, that said Ellen M. Wilson was wealthy; that her health was becoming impaired and that she was physically unable to manage her household affairs,-.that she was living alone; and that she desired plaintiff to accompany her to California. It was further alleged that Mrs. Wilson promised that if plaintiff would accompany her to California, would take care of her and would manage her household affairs, she would fully compensate plaintiff for such services, if not in Mrs. Wilson’s lifetime, then by provision in her will. It is averred that plaintiff accepted the offer made by her aunt and that she came to this state. There are very extended allegations regarding the manner in which plaintiff complied with her agreement and in respect to the details of the care and attention bestowed by her upon Mrs. Wilson up to the time of the latter’s death.

In the amended complaint of 1909 were alleged the same sort of duties which were to be performed by plaintiff under the agreement, and which according to the averments were performed during the same period as that specified in the original complaint and in the claim upon which it was founded. But it was averred that the contract was made not in 1902 but in 1887, by the plaintiff and Mrs. Wilson and the mother of plaintiff, and that by them it was agreed not that the plaintiff would then and there accompany her aunt to California, but that whenever Mrs. Wilson should write to plaintiff’s mother for plaintiff to come to this state and live with her the plaintiff would do so, relying upon the promise of the aunt to see that the niece would be well provided for. It-was alleged that in 1902 plaintiff came, in response to a request in a letter written to her sister, and that she entered upon the discharge of her duties in accordance with the agreement of 1887.

The amended complaint of 1916 differs very little from that of 1909. In both the time of the original agreement is given as the year 1887. In the amended complaint of 1909 the agreement alleged was that if plaintiff would come to California when requested, her aunt would see that she was well provided for. In the pleading of 1916, after the words ‘ ‘ provided for,” were added the words “during the life of said Ellen. M. Wilson and that at the death of said Ellen M. Wilson, she, the said plaintiff, would be, by said Ellen M. Wilson, amply and fully provided for and compensated for her said services.” In this complaint for the first time occurs the formal allegation that Mrs Wilson did not by will or otherwise provide for plaintiff.

We are of the opinion that none of the minute and diversified specifications of alleged error, founded upon the supposedly vital differences between the contract set forth in the original complaint and the two described in the later pleadings, is of :any force. The essence of plaintiff’s action against the estate was her claim for services rendered during certain years pursuant to a certain agreement. Even if we should concede that the first complaint failed to state a cause of action, we would not be forced to the conclusion that the statute of limitations barred all possibility of recovery because there was no complaint which should have withstood an attack by demurrer during the time between the filing of the original and the preparation of the amended pleading. Nor is there anything so essentially different between the various contracts alleged and that finally proven as to require us to decide that either the one in the second or that in the third complaint set forth was at variance with the creditor’s claim against the estate. These phases of the pleadings are so well analyzed in the opinion filed by the learned judge of the superior court who presided at the last trial, that we take this occasion to quote and adopt his language used in ruling upon the application to file the second amended complaint. He said:

In addition to the authorities cited in the foregoing quotation we might refer to San Joaquin Valley Bank v. Gate City Oil Co., 170 Cal. 250 , [ 149 Pac. 557 ], and Glougie v. Glougie, 174 Cal. 126 , [ 162 Pac. 118 ].

The same rules announced by the court in overruling appellant’s various attacks upon" the complaint as amended apply with greater force to the refusal to "hold that there was a fatal difference between the creditor’s claim as filed and the one upon which suit was brought, because the courts go further in upholding such demands against estates than in sustaining pleadings. Indeed, it is usually necessary in such cases to go more into details in the complaint than in the claim. In the claim as in the complaint the essential element was a substantial assertion of the contract and its fulfillment on the claimant’s part. While the date of making the agreement as set forth in the creditor’s claim against the estate differed from that alleged in the complaint after amendment, the promise to be performed by Mrs. Wilson, as well as the nature of the services actually rendered and the time during which claimant performed those services, were all alleged in substantially the same form in the claim and in all the pleadings of the claimant. Plaintiff could recover for all of her services and could escape the bar of the statute of limitations only by showing that under her contract she was to be finally compensated upon the death of Mrs. Wilson.- It was, therefore, necessary for her to put the essentials of the contract in the creditor’s claim, but the date was not one of them. In Thompson v. Orena, 134 Cal. 26 , [ 66 Pac. 24 ], the court was considering a suit based upon a claim for services performed for which payment was to be made upon the sale by decedent of certain land, which remained unsold iat her death. In the creditor’s claim the land was not described, and the omission of such description was not held, fatal to the validity of the claim, the court holding that the only necessity for any reference to the land arose out of the fact that the claim should show that it was not barred by the statute of limitations. In Western States Life Ins. Co. v. Lockwood, 166 Cal. 185 -196, [ 135 Pac. 496 ], it was held that such a claim need not be drawn with the precision which would render a complaint good against a special demurrer. The code does not prescribe the exact form of such a claim. The purpose of presenting such a demand is to advise "the representative of the estate of its nature, and there is no requirement that it shall state the facts with all the detail necessary in a complaint nor is its sufficiency to be tested by the rules of pleading. (Pollitz v. Wickersham, 150 Cal. 238 , [ 88 Pac. 911 ] ; Elizalde v. Murphy, 163 Cal. 681 , [ 126 Pac. 978 ]; Enscoe v. Fletcher, 1 Cal. App. 659 , [ 82 Pac. 1075 ].)

Defendant moved to strike out as purely conclusions of law and redundancies certain parts of the second amended complaint—the one filed in 1916. Some of the parts at which the motion was directed were statements that certain things were done by plaintiff “in pursuance” of a certain agreement and statements of Mrs. Wilson. 'These were not mere conclusions of law and were no more subject to just criticism, as respondent’s counsel correctly argue, than the allegation so frequently and properly used in pleadings that a plaintiff “duly performed all conditions and terms” of a contract “on his part to be performed.” Even if these expressions had been, as appellant’s counsel contend, irrelevant and redundant, the failure of the court to strike them out would not be ground for reversal of the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 475; Sloane v. Southern California Ry. Co., 111 Cal. 668—686, [32 L. R. A. 193, 44 Pac. 320 ]; Higgins v. San Diego Savings Bank, 129 Cal. 184 -186, [ 61 Pac. 943 ]; Procter v. Southern California Ry. Co., 130 Cal. 20 -24, [ 62 Pac. 306 , 509].)

The testimony was conflicting, but there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. It was the theory of the defendant’s counsel that any agreement made in 1887 was, upon the view most favorable to respondent, merely an option which expired either by lapse of time or was revoked by other and later offers of employment. EVen if it be conceded that the agreement was a mere option, there was substantial evidence in the case at bar to support a conclusion not only that the option had been exercised by Mrs. Wilson, but that she had stated to a number of her friends after Miss Doolittle came to live with her that the arrangement between them was one by which she was bound to provide in her will for her niece. The mere fact that fifteen years elapsed between the making of the original arrangement and a time when Mrs. Wilson’s health was so impaired as to lead her to a conclusion that she wanted Miss Doolittle ■ to come to California in fulfillment of the agreement does not destroy the validity of the option. It is well settled that if made prior to 1905, an oral contract to dispose of property on death in a particular way may be enforced, ‘and it sometimes occurs that many years elapse between the making of the agreement and an action such as this. In the recent ease of Steinberger v. Young, 175 Cal. 81 , [ 165 Pac. 432 ], the oral agreement which was enforced had been made 'almost half a century before the death of Mrs. Eoss, of whose estate defendant Young was the administrator.

The contention is likewise made that the “option” was withdrawn by the offers, made by Mrs. Wilson (of which there was some evidence), to pay plaintiff a certain wage if she would enter her aunt’s employment. It is not contended that these offers were accepted, and they may be justly regarded as mere unsuccessful efforts to vary the terms of the original understanding. However, the agreement of 1887, as revealed by the testimony of members of plaintiff’s family present when the alleged conversation took place between Mrs. Wilson and plaintiff’s mother, was not a mere option simply because performance on the part of Miss Phoebe Doolittle was to be postponed. The oral agreement did not differ in essence from those alleged and proven in such eases as Steinberger v. Young, supra, and Rogers v. Schlotterback, 167 Cal. 35 , [ 138 Pac. 728 ]. The real issues of the case were admirably stated in an instruction offered by the defendant and given by the court, which was as follows:

The testimony of the brother and one of the sisters of the plaintiff was sufficient, if believed by the jury, to establish the first requisites for a judgment for plaintiff as outlined by the quoted instruction. Mr. George Doolittle, speaking of a time in 1887 and an occasion at his mother’s home in Iowa when ■his mother, his aunt, Mrs. Wilson, and several of his sisters were also present, testified in part as follows:

Eva R. Huska, a sister of plaintiff, corroborated their brother with reference to the conversation in Iowa in 1887. She also said that Mrs. Wilson told the mother of the girls', that if she should take one of them she would do well by the one who should come to her.

There was abundant testimony to the effect that Mrs. Wilson again and again declared her satisfaction with the manner in which Miss Doolittle ministered to her wants and managed her household affairs, and that she expressed her intention to pay for plaintiff’s care of and devotion to her by a substantial provision to be made by her will. It will not be necessary to set forth all of this testimony. Its trend will appear from the few quotations which we shall make below.

Dr. Briggs, physician and pharmacist, who for some years practiced and conducted a drug-store at Elk Grove, Sacramento County, knew Mrs. Wilson well and frequently talked with her when she was well enough to ride out, which, he said, was “a good part of the time.” It was her custom to stop in front of the store, and as it was difficult for her to get out of the carriage, he would frequently go out and talk to her. Within six months after the arrival of Miss Doolittle at the home of Mrs. Wilson the latter had a conversation with Dr. Briggs, Which he described as follows:

Mrs. Walther, an acquaintance of more than thirty years, testified that Mrs. Wilson, speaking of Mass Doolittle, said “ ‘Phoebe is a good girl. I told her if she stayed with me as long as I lived, I would provide for her so she would never want, ’ ” and that in the same conversation Mrs. Wilson, speaking of her niece, said: “ ‘I am giving her a little monthly allowance now to buy clothes and little articles with. ’ ”

All of this testimony and more to the same effect tended to confirm the plaintiff’s position with reference to the scope and meaning of the original agreement made in 1887.

It would unnecessarily prolong this opinion to quote at any length from the testimony of the many witnesses who told of the care and devotion bestowed by plaintiff upon her aunt. Suffice it to say that such testimony, if accepted as true, was amply sufficient to support that part of the case outlined in the latter part of the instruction quoted above.

It is the theory of the appellant that the sum of fifteen dollars per month allowed to Miss Doolittle by her aunt was intended to be and was in full payment for her services. It is, of course, admitted that witnesses told of conversations in which Mrs. Wilson said this monthly payment was merely an allowance for “pin money,” but counsel insist that the acceptance by plaintiff from defendant of a sum of money and the signing of a receipt amounted to the final settlement of an account stated which precludes recovery in this action. The receipt was in the words and figures following:

It appears from Miss Doolittle’s testimony that her cousin, the defendant, came to her and asked what was “coming to her.” She, according to her testimony, replied: “There is fifteen dollars on my monthly allowance and two dollars and fifty cents for five days additional amount, and twenty-nine dollars I had advanced Auntie to pay her hired man.” The receipt was given, if the date be correct, upon the day upon which the will was filed and some time before Mr.' McConnell was appointed executor. The paper was, of course, admissible as an admission, but it was for the jury to say whether or not it was, under all the circumstances, an admission of full payment of all that she believed herself to be entitled to receive under her aunt’s will. "When the receipt was given the defendant was not executor, and the document could not be regarded, in a strict sense, an account stated between plaintiff and the estate, but even if it be so regarded, there is nothing to prevent impeachment of such an account for fraud or mistake. (1 R. C. L. 218-220.) According to the modern doctrine, an account stated “simply affords strong presumptive evidence which may be rebutted by showing fraud or mistake.” (1 C. J. 709.) Clearly, it was for the jury to say whether or not under the evidence Miss Doolittle signed the receipt through mistake.

It is asserted by appellant’s counsel that respondent has no standing in court by reason of an improper verification of the creditor’s claim. The affidavit attached to the claim was made by Miss Doolittle’s attorney, who deposed as follows:

The verification is made in substantial compliance with section 1494 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but appellant’s counsel insist that because Mr. Sims, who signed it as attorney, was not employed by Miss Doolittle until after her aunt’s death, and because, upon examination at the trial, he testified that, although he knew Miss Doolittle was living with her aunt, he knew nothing of their business relations until he was retained as an attorney, therefore he was disqualified to make the affidavit. Whatever may be the rule in other states, in California the courts have generally refused to be very technical in ruling upon matters of this sort. In Estate of Swain, 67 Cal. 637 , [ 8 Pac. 497 ], the court refused to hold certain claims void because of faulty verification. It was there declared that a “claim” against an estate has reference to a debt or demand which might have been enforced against the decedent in his lifetime. If the demand were the subject of a suit during his life, and if the statement of the cause of action were deemed objectionable, defective, or insufficient, the defendant would have the right to demand a bill of particulars, and similarly an executor or administrator might insist upon “vouchers and proofs” to support a claim which has been presented. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1494.) It is true that in the Estate of Swain the validity of the claim was established prima facie by the administrator’s approval, and the burden of proof, therefore, was upon the heirs who assailed its sufficiency; but that case is authority, we think, for holding that an executor or administrator may not postpone an attack upon a verification until after the rejection of the claim and the bringing of suit thereon, when he has not called for vouchers and proofs and when he bases his objections upon the supposed lack of actual knowledge, on the part of the verifying agent, of the facts supporting the claim. Of course, the claim must of necessity be authenticated by a verification which on its face contains the essential matters prescribed by section 1494 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Perkins v. Onyett, 86 Cal. 348 , [ 24 Pac. 1024 ].) This verification does meet that requirement. (Griffith v. Lewin, 129 Cal. 596 , [ 62 Pac. 172 ].) In Guerian v. Joyce, 133 Cal. 405 , [ 65 Pac. 972 ] , the affidavit of the claimant showed upon its face that she was ignorant of the amount of some items of credit, yet the verification was held sufficient. The purpose of a claim against an estate is to-give the executor or administrator such information as will enable him “to act upon it advisedly.” (Western States Life Ins. Co. v. Lockwood, 166 Cal. 185 -196, [ 135 Pac. 496 ].) That case is also authority for a court’s refusal to hear minute ■technical objections based upon the supposed faulty verification of a claim made long after the commencement of an action and after the time for presentation of claim has expired. The court did not err in refusing to grant a nonsuit on the ground that no legally verified claim had ever been presented to the executor.

No other alleged errors require review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Lorigan, J., and Wilbur, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.