This is an action to recover damages for a malicious trespass on real property, alleged to have been committed in said county of Multnomah on the sixth day of October, 1886. The actual damage alleged was sixty dollars, but by reason of the alleged malice of the defendants, and the aggravated circumstances of the trespass, the plaintiff claimed damages in the sum of one thousand dollars. Upon a trial before a jury she was awarded the sum of six hundred dollars. From that judgment this appeal is taken. The cause was tried on the twenty-sixth day of February, 1887.
*465For the purpose of justifying their entry upon the premises in question, the defendants offered in evidence upon the trial a properly certified copy of the judgment roll, in a suit theretofore finally determined in Department No. 2 of the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, wherein Margaret Holland was plaintiff, and Ellen Day, James Day, Lizzie Day, Mary Day, and Frank Day were defendants. The final decree in said last-named suit was entered on the twenty-seventh day of September, 1886, the object of which was to quiet the title of the plaintiff to the real property upon which the alleged trespass was committed. The court by its decree found for the plaintiff as to the particular parcel of land where the injury complained of in this case was committed, and decreed that “the said defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming through, by, or under them, be, and they are hereby forever barred of any and all right, title, estate, or interest in or to the said real estate, or any portion thereof, and are hereby restrained and enjoined forever from claiming or asserting or exercising, or attempting to exercise any right, title, or interest therein, or thereto, or in any manner interfering with the title or possession of said plaintiff in and to the said property ; and that the legal title and the right to the immediate and continued peaceable possession in and to the said property is hereby confirmed, ordered, and decreed,” etc. It further appeared from the said judgment roll that an appeal had been taken from said decree by the defendants to this court, and that on such appeal the undertaking was given for an appeal only. It did not appear from said judgment roll that said cause had been remanded from this court to the court below. The judgment roll was excluded, to which ruling an exception was taken, and this is the only material question presented by this appeal.
It is claimed by the appellant that this decree was competent evidence for either one of two purposes: (1) That it constituted a full and complete justification for all of the alleged trespasses charged in the complaint; or (2) that it was competent evidence to be submitted to the jury tending to negative and disprove malice. The jurisdiction of this court is appellate and revisory only. It can exercise no original jurisdiction. Article vii., *466sectiou 6, of the Constitution vests and limits its jurisdiction in these words: “The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction only to revise the final decisions of the Circuit Courts.” This revisory jurisdiction is exercised by means of a statutory appeal.
The same statute regulates the method of appeals in both actions at law and suits in equity. The only distinctions which it makes in the two classes of cases is, that if the appeal be from a decree, the appellant need not specify in the notice of appeal the grounds of error upon which he intends to rely, and if the evidence has been taken in writing, the cause shall be tried anew upon the transcript and evidence accompanying it. If the evidence has not been taken in writing in the court below, an equity case is re-examined here only upon the exceptions which were taken in the court below. The first question, therefore, is, what effect did the appeal have upon the decree in said cause? "Was the decree in question vacated and broken up by the appeal so that it ceased to be binding upon the parties, or was its enforcement stayed pending the appeal by force of section 539 of Hill’s Code, and what was the effect of such “stay,” if it existed? In such a case as this, the statute has not declared the effect of an appeal during its pendency upon the decree; we are therefore compelled to examine the question on reason and authority outside of the State.
In Dutcher v. Culber, 23 Minn. 415, it was held that where the statute provides that a party may appeal, no certain inference can be drawn from the term “appeal” alone as to its effect upon the proceedings below; and that in determining what effect was, the court might properly look at the general policy of the law of appeals as furnishing a valuable analogy, and to the practical consequences of giving to the appeal the effect to stay proceedings below, or the contrary effect. Apply this view to the case, the court was of the opinion that the appeal from the order of the probate court did net vacate or suspend the operation of the order. The case of Sixth Avenue R. R. Co. v. The Gilbert Elevated R. R. Co. 71 N. Y. 430, involved, as I think, the precise question presented by this record. In that case, as here, the final decree enjoined the defendants from doing *467certain things. The parties enjoined appealed, and gave the undertaking to stay the judgment, and then claimed that their appeal during its pendency relieved them from the effects of the injunction. But the court held otherwise. The court said: u If the respondent here is right in its contention, pending an appeal from a judgment staying waste, which if committed will destroy the freehold, the appellant in simply staying the plaintiff's proceedings on the judgment may with impunity do the very act forbidden, and destroy the freehold. This would be to give the latter injunction, staying action by the one party upon the judgment, effect, as working a dissolution of the permanent and general injunction before granted, restraining the other party from doing any act affecting the subject of the litigation. The judgment, so far as it enjoined the defendant, needed no execution. It acted directly without process upon the defendant, and the stay only operated to prevent the collection of the costs awarded."
So in Nill v. Camparet, 16 Ind. 107, it was held that the only effect of an appeal to a court of error, when perfected, is to stay execution upon the judgment from which it is taken. In all other respects, until annulled or reversed, the judgment is binding upon the parties as to every question directly decided. So in Cain v. Williams, 16 Nev. 426, it was decided that the pendency of an appeal, when the appellate court has no other duty than to affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment appealed from, does not suspend the operation of the judgment; the judgment is good until set aside: So, also, in Swing v. Townsend, 21 Ohio St. 1, it was held that the appointment of a receiver, while the cause is in the common pleas, is not vacated or suspended by an appeal to the District Court, and the powers and duties of the receiver will continue, notwithstanding the appeal. These cases also are to the same effect: Lewis v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. 59 Mo. 495; Orleans v. Platt, 99 U. S. 676; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342; Merchants' Ins. Co. v. De Wolf, 33 Pa. St. 45; Farmers’ L. & T. Co. v. Cent. R. R. Co. 4 McCrary, 546; Allen v. Mayor and Aldermen of Savannah, 9 Ga. 286; Chase v. Jefferson, 1 Houst. 257; Swydam v. Hoyt’s Adm’r, 1 Dutch. 130; 2 Dan*468iel’s Chancery Practice, § 1467, and note 3; Paine v. Schenectady Ins. Co. 11 R. I. 411. And this rule seems to be sustained by the weight of authority, and is elementary. (Freeman on Judgments, § 328; Woods’ Pr. Ev. p. 735.)
In reaching the conclusion indicated by these authorities, we have not overlooked the distinctions which existed prior to the enactment of the Code between the effect to be given to an appeal and the suing out of a writ of error. But such distinctions are swept away by the Code. The entire procedure is now governed by one statute, and no sufficient reason appears to us for making the distinction claimed by the respondent. This very case is a good illustration why such distinction should not be tolerated or recognized. In the original case of Holland v. Day, as has been shown, a final decree was entered in favor of the plaintiff, adjudging her to be the owner of the premises then in dispute, and perpetually enjoining the defendant from claiming the same, or in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceable enjoyment of the same, from which decree the defendant appealed. After the entry of that decree the plaintiff present defendant, undertook to enter under it, and was resisted, and for that alleged wrong this action is brought, in which the plaintiff is awarded six hundred dollars damages. Upon the appeal in said suit, this court affirmed the decree of the court below, so far as the particular premises in controversy in this action are concerned, so that it is apparent that this defendant is mulct in six hundred dollars damages and costs for an attempted entry on her own premises under a valid and unreversed decree of the Circuit Court of Multnomah County. A construction which may produce such results is unsound, and cannot receive the sanction of this court.
Our attention has been called to the latter part of section 514 of Hill’s Code, which provides: “ An action or suit is deemed to be pending from the commencement thereof until its final determination upon appeal, or until the expiration of the period allowed to take an appeal.” But this section has no direct bearing upon the question involved here. To adopt the respondent’s construction of this section would be to hold, in effect, that *469a judgment or decree is ineffectual and without any force until the time allowed to take an appeal has expired, for the reason that during that time the action is to be deemed pending. The facts of this case do not require a construction of this language, further than to say that the one suggested on argument cannot be adopted. Judgments and decrees are constantly enforced and executed long before the time for an appeal has expired, and the right to do so has never been before questioned in this court. But if a construction of that language were really necessary to a proper determination of this case, we should feel disposed to hold that it is in effect declaratory of the rule of law, as it existed before the enactment of the Code. In other words, that after judgment a party may take such steps in the action as are sanctioned or provided by law, and that for these purposes and these only the action is “ to be deemed pending,” and not that the whole action, for all purposes, and before the judgment is vacated or set aside, is still sub judice. To give this language the construction contended for, would be to hold that until the time for appealing had expired, a judgment is without legal force or effect, and that during that time neither party is bound by it.
It is claimed by respondent’s counsel that under section 539 of Hill’s Code, this decree was stayed by the appeal without the usual undertaking. But this does not affect the result. The “stay” in either case would only prevent the enforcement of the decree so far as it required the enforcement- of the payment of money. The other part of the -decree needed no -enforcement. It operated upon the status of the thing, and fixed it irrevocably, unless changed on appeal.
In this class of cases, the usual and ordinary measure of damages is the amount which will fully compensate the plaintiff for the actual injury which he has sustained; but where a tort is committed with a bad motive, or so recklessly as to imply a disregard of social obligations, and generally when the defendant appears to have done the act wantonly, maliciously, or wickedly, the jury may, in their discretion, give exemplary damages. But to enable them to act intelligently and justly in such case, it is *470important that every fact and circumstance bearing upon the motives of the defendant, or affecting his conduct at the time, and all the circumstances under which he acted, should be fully laid before them. The defendant, therefore, had the right to place before the jury in this case the decree offered in evidence as explanatory of his motives, and as tending to rebut the charge of malice. It tended to prove a reason for the defendant’s conduct other than that charged in the complaint, and for this purpose it was wholly immaterial whether the decree was in full force or not, if the defendant honestly believed that it was, and that she had a right of entry under it.
These considerations lead to a reversal of the judgment; but inasmuch as the decree offered in evidence furnished a complete justification for the entry complained of, we think it unnecessary to order a new trial.