Proper v. Proper

The plaintiffs move for a reargument. In paragraph two we quoted the order of July 15, 1931, which vacated the judgment after the reversal here of the order denying a new trial, and included a statement appearing therein in parentheses that the property taken should be returned. The order was so printed in the paper book, though there was a notation that the portion in parentheses had been stricken by the judge who tried the case. Upon inspection of the original files it appears that these lines were stricken before signing. It was our mistake in not noting the statement in the paper book…