*690On Motion for Rehearing.
Per Curiam.Subsequent to filing of the opinion of this Court in Duffy v. Kelly, 353 Mich 682, counsel for plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing. *
The important allegation contained therein was that certain facts ■recited in the opinion of the Court on pages 688 and 689 as being found in “plaintiff’s “appendix” were not contained therein and, on the contrary, were contained in a series of exhibits filed by-defendants accompanying their motion to dismiss.
The documents referred to, consisting of the union’s constitution and bylaws and photostats of various records, are found physically attached to plaintiff’s bill of complaint in the court record certified to this Court by the circuit court. They follow in the record plaintiff’s bill of complaint and a page attached thereto entitled “Appendix.”
On inquiry by the clerk of this Court to counsel for both parties, we are advised that the attachment of these exhibits to plaintiff’s bill of complaint was in error and that they should have been attached to defendants’ motion to dismiss. This being the ease, the facts recited on pages 688 and 689 should not be considered by this Court on appeal from a dismissal of .the plaintiff’s bill of complaint and we take this means of making the correction needed.
Likewise, the reference to the same exhibits should be deleted from the first sentence on page 687 and the sentence should be revised to read: “These documents we find quoted in the appendix,” et cetera.
On re-examination of the case and the opinion as revised, however, we find that the factual material thus excised is largely explanatory, and its presence or absence is not controlling of the result. Plaintiff cannot be held to have been prejudiced by the error. Roff v. McCreery, 199 Mich 391, 393; In re Visscher’s Estate, 275 Mich 472, 477.
The motion for rehearing is denied.
Dethmers, C. J., and Carr, Kelly, Smith, Black, Edwards, Yoelker, and Kavanagh, JJ., concurred.