appeal or writ error in Idaho

1966By bringing it into court, the appellants are estopped from claiming that defendant has no right to be in court.” 270 N.W. at 568-569 .

1965Appeal and Error § 214, page 638: “ ‘According to other decisions, however, it is held to be the better rule that even a voluntary compliance with the judgment, order, or decree of the court by payment or performance, either before or after taking the appeal, is not necessarily a bar to an appeal or writ of error for its reversal, particularly where repayment or restitution may be enforced, or the effect of compliance may be otherwise undone, in case of a reversal, and where a statute permits an appeal without obtaining a stay. * * * It has further been held that it is immaterial whether or no

1965Appeal and Error § 214, page 638: “ ‘According to other decisions, however, it is held to be the better rule that even a voluntary compliance with the judgment, order, or decree of the court by payment or performance, either before or after taking the appeal, is not necessarily a bar to an appeal or writ of error for its reversal, particularly where repayment or restitution may be enforced, or the effect of compliance may be otherwise undone, in case of a reversal, and where a statute permits an appeal without obtaining a stay. * * * It has further been held that it is immaterial whether or no

1959In People v. Pyrros, 323 Mich. 329 , 35 N.W.2d 281 , the appellant was convicted in municipal court of “drunk driving” and sentenced to pay a fine of $100, and it was recommended that his driver’s license be suspended for three months.

1959In People v. Pyrros, 323 Mich. 329 , 35 N.W.2d 281 , the appellant was convicted in municipal court of “drunk driving” and sentenced to pay a fine of $100, and it was recommended that his driver’s license be suspended for three months.

1905Rehberg v. Greiser, 24 Mont. 487 , 62 Pac. 820 , and 63 Pac. 41 , is from the supreme court of Montana, and is a case where the appeal was dismissed for failure to set out any specification of errors, and is founded on a rule very similar to paragraph 1 of rule 6 of this court; but the court there held that the.filing of such an enumeration of errors was not jurisdictional, and in the course of opinion referred to the fact that in other cases the court had disallowed motions to dismiss for such failure.

1905Rehberg v. Greiser, 24 Mont. 487 , 62 Pac. 820 , and 63 Pac. 41 , is from the supreme court of Montana, and is a case where the appeal was dismissed for failure to set out any specification of errors, and is founded on a rule very similar to paragraph 1 of rule 6 of this court; but the court there held that the.filing of such an enumeration of errors was not jurisdictional, and in the course of opinion referred to the fact that in other cases the court had disallowed motions to dismiss for such failure.

1898The supreme court of California in one case said: “The repose of society demands that, when a controversy has been ended by the final judgment of a court, it shall not be reopened except within a reasonable time; and, in respect to bills of review, courts of equity have adopted, as a reasonable period within which they may be prosecuted, the time allowed by law for the prosecution of an appeal or writ of error.” (See Allen v. Currey, 41 Cal. 318 , and authorities there cited.) Under our code, the cases in which a bill of review will lie are very limited.