*1 JJ., DONALDSON, McFADDEN section. —The “Exceptions preceding not be section must construed concur. preceding power the a
to affect of testator SHEPARD, J., J., BAKES, property by of his real a last the result. testament, prevent any nor to will and arising being extinguished trust from or law, of nor to
by implication operation or
abridge power compel the of specific performance agree-
the
ment, performance in case of there- part
of.”
Thus,
long
performance
has
partial
so
dence MAYNARD, Judge, John H. shows, case, Defendant-Respondent. In this the evidence found, Jolleys the the trial court No. 14101. and lived possession property took of the Supreme Court of Idaho. years; upon it as owners for fifteen the Jolleys improvements upon made the 10, 1982. June $10,000, roughly valued or property at purchase of the that the Jol price, amount
leys paid property taxes on Jolleys paid
1964 to and that
$5,500 $10,000 price. purchase This
unquestionably part perform constitutes sufficient contract out of
ance to take the
the statute of frauds.4 “[S]atisfaction part en performance
the doctrine [will] [performing specific per parties]
title Hoffman, supra, 102 Idaho at
formance.” Tew Manwar at See 628 P.2d
ing, judgment
The the district court award- performance Jolleys to the
ing specific
Affirmed. Costs to respondents. “by incapable appeal its must terms” be also brief contract raises in his on year performance is barred argument a before it of by within the contract violates per- evi- this is no cannot In case there statute of frauds because it be statute. year. this clause formed in less than a We understand dence an affirmative contract impos- year argument 9-505(1). performance be a based on I.C. would within render 9-505(1) provides: 7§ of Frauds sible. 72 Am.Jur.2d Statute See 1972) (“that be (2d cannot a contract at 571 ed. agreements writing. be in “Certain —In year or performed natural a not a within means invalid, following agreement cases the by impossibility physical impossibility, but an unless the note or memoran- same or some itself, by under- the contract thereof, terms of writing and subscribed dum be in parties shown Evidence, standing intention of the agent. party charged, his . inappli- contract.”). therefore, Thus the statute agreement be re- cannot secondary effect writing cable need not address evi- and we ceived without the part performance its statute. dence of contents: agreement An its is not “1. terms performed year from mak- within ing thereof.”
178
PER CURIAM: E. Appellant George Pittam filed a second information in the district amended court of the Judicial District on Second January in which the “Citizen identified himself as a Prosecutor.” alleged [Judge] The information “[t]hat John Maynard knowingly, wilfully M. faith, neglect and in refuse and bad perform official of his office and duties salary illegally collected his for services rendered, purportedly in violation of Article Section 18 and Article The informa- State Constitution.” tion specific alleged then set out twelve or constitutional violations al- legedly by Judge Maynard. Appel- caused 19-102(1), 19-301,19-902, lant cited I.C. §§ 19-4115, summary procedure officers, authority of civil as the information filed.
The other district of the Second themselves, having disqualified Idaho Supreme appointed Judge Court 12,1981, February James Towles on “for G. disposing preliminaries of all purpose motions, other matters and trial, ings, if presiding any, and of over final of the above-entitled ” Towles, cause Judge February .... 23, 1981, without requiring appearance of Judge Maynard hearing evidence determined, matter, sua sponte, jurisdiction district court was without appear issue a citation to judge supreme justice a named defendant under I.C. § jurisdiction to consider matters without under where a offi- I.C. 19—4115 cer is to be The court sought removed. ordered action enjoined appellant be under I.C. § 4115 officer of the State Appellant appeals. of Idaho. If district court was without Pittam, se. pro subject jurisdiction to remove matter H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn David E. pursuant elected district from office Thomas, Gen., Frost, Sol. Thomas Deputy of Dis then the action Gen., Atty. Boise, Idaho, action, for defendant-re- trict dismissing Towles in Judge spondent. sponte, sua Wellard v. was correct. See
179 in Eis- as was the circumstance Wellard, process, P.2d 621 541 privy We are not Robinson, Robinson mann Ju- court records of Second P.2d the district may Judge dicial District Assuming, deciding, without predi- was action If Towles’ been. applies judge, a district *3 before knowledge, the record cated on such issue which we must decide is whether for the indicate, and counsel not so us does state, 5, by adopting of this Article people in ei- point not that urge does respondent 28, in Idaho Constitution base our We must argument. ther brief or 1968, relating to the removal from office us, which does record before decision justices judges,1 legislature and and the in Mil- process abuse of not disclose -2103, 1967 enacting I.C. 1-2102 and §§ set ler, injunction Hence the Laws, 67, 2, 3, ch. intended Idaho Sess. §§ aside. preempt any earlier method court. judges removal of of the district court dis- judgment of the district and they that did concluded information, as modi- missing petitioner’s agree appellant’s petition. We ap- against striking injunction fied and affirm district court’s decision. allowed. is affirmed. No costs pellant, re and appointment The method of chapter in judges
moval of district set out BISTLINE, re- Justice, concurring in the 1, Code, compre Idaho 21 of Title is far too sult. hensive, chapter are and aims of that history own of Idaho my study Because provisions too inconsistent with the much that I.C. law convinces me § and case permit to stand. both § territorial 4115, originally enacted we hold Accordingly provisions R. codified as S. in 1887 and first legislature enact originally which was § officials, a 7459, inapplicable to state 1887, 7459, ed in R.S. to the extent such,1 being and district were im they apply judges, territorial applied to the section never 5, repealed by of Art. pliedly adoption I governors, attorneys general, or judges, Constitution, enact of the Idaho but opinion, joined not Court’s have chapter ment of Title constitutional holding Code. judges removal of provisions for ap alleges on further pro- do through judiciary ings initiated its au peal that district court abused the relief for appropriate avenues vide entering enjoining ap thority its order seeking. Mr. Pittam which pellant filing proceedings under I.C.
officer of the state of The courts Idaho. enjoin of Idaho
the state
persons engaged in a abuse of manifest 101 Ida process, Eismann
ho see J. I. Case McDonald, 223, 280 P.2d
Co. v. only The record here indicates se abuse per of this action and no George W. E. Borah Ainslie and JUDICIAL 28. OF 5] § REMOVAL “[Art. retirement, respondent, dis- it was stated: for OFFICERS.—Provisions for the justices cipline removal from office of provisions “The constitution makes provided by shall be as law.” by impeachment, of state officers for the removal leaves the Jauman, 36 P. In Rankin v. provided for officers other civil (1894), Hawley Reeves with & legislature.”