Hermann

When a case is appealed from this Court to the Supreme Court, this Court completely loses jurisdiction of the cause. Thereafter, our jurisdiction cam be revived only upon the mandate of the-Supreme Court itself, and even upon such restoration, the jurisdiction of this Court is rigidly limited to those points, ancE those points only, specifically consigned to our consideration by the Supreme Court.

In the instant case, this Court is functioning under such a remand. Consequently, our jurisdiction is strictly limited by the Supreme Court’s mandate. That mandate is our compass and our guide.

1. Statement of the Case.

A full and detailed statement of the case is to be found in our opinion in Herrmann v. Rogers, 9 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 871, 872-874 , and need not be repeated here.

2. The Remand from the Supreme Court.

On January 26, 1959, in Herrmann v. Rogers, 358 U.S. 332 , 79 S.Ct. 353 , 3 L. Ed.2d 345 , the Supreme Court handed down the following specific mandate to this Court:

3. The Pertinent “Law of Property of Idaho.”

The pertinent “lav/ of property of Idaho” is found in the following sections of *844 the Idaho Code, 1957 edition, Volume 9A:

At this stage of our analysis…