following: 1 If the judgment or decree

|

  following: 1 If the judgment or decree
following: 1 If the judgment or decree

;pealed from be for the recovery of vmor of personal property, or the value tb? of, that if the same or any part therefaffirmed, the appellant will satisfy it ? lias affirmed.So far then as Hf actual detention of the defendant Is Codch!ed, the execution of the order of imprissment was stayed by the service and filial ithe notice of appeal and undertaking is At contempt proceedings, for such an undent ing is operative from the date of its fifc Anderson v. Phegley, 54 Or. 102, 102 P?t 603. This of Itself would discharge the p oner until the contempt proceeding could h heard in this court on appeal. The re?r. however, discloses farther back another superable objection to the imprisonmea t'the defendant In addition to the instaia already quoted from section 551, prescrits additional conditions to be inserted in ac c dertaklng to work out a stay of prowtiii-' that section has subdivisions 2 and 3, the a relating to a judgment or decree respects! the recovery of possession, or yartitioa 4real property, or the foreclosure of ? thereon, and the other concerning a deff requiring the transfer or delivery of perss! property. A fourth subdivision applies a' decree for the foreclosure of a lieu, and tains this further condition: When the cree appealed from requires the execute ta conveyance or other instrument, execfiof the decree is not stayed by the apf unless the instrument is executed andposited with the clerk within the time^' ed to file the undertaking, to abide UAlthough forms of actions and suits as prescribed at common law have been abolished, ret the distinction is carefully preuggs usa        served in this state between actions at law, suits in equity, and what are known to ourugg usa Code as special proceedings. A judgment is defined to be 'lie final determination of the rights of the parties in the action. Section 179, Lugg usa outlet. O. L. I'nder the equity procedure, the final deermination of the rights of the parties there:o is called a decreesection 409, L O. Lugg outlet usa.; while the final determination of he rights of the parties in a special proceedug, among which are the writ of mandamus, he writ of habeas corpus, and the punishnent of contempt, Is denominated a judgnent. Section 601, L. O. L. With these listinctions between judgments and decrees n mind It is manifest that the decision of he court In the mandamus proceeding was lot a decree within the meaning of that part if subdivision 4 of section 551, L. O. L., suira, which has been quoted. The detenninaion of the mandamus litigation which reuired the defendant to execute the contract uentioned and approve the bond given in onnection therewith was a judgment, and is ot governed by the excerpt from subdlviion 4 of section 551 just mentioned, as that pplies only to decrees in equity. It Is proided in section 552, L. O. L., that In cases ot provided for In the subdivisions of secion 551, when an appeal is perfected with uundertaking for the appeal only, proceedlgs shall be stayed as If the further unertaking thereof had been given.[3 The deduction is plain that, when the sfendaut in the mandamus proceeding served ud filed his notice of appeal with an underiking conditioned to pay all damages, costs, augg outlet usa        d disbursements which' might be awarded ?ainst him on the appeal, it operated to susjnd further proceedings by the circuit court i the mandamus action. Hence, when called pon to show cause on June 2, 1913, why he lould not be punished for contempt, the dendant was able to and did exhibit to the iurt a situation in which the authority to iforce obedience to the peremptory writ of iiiidninus by contempt procedure had been ispended by the stay of proceedings which suited by operation of law from the filingthe notice of appeal and undertaking. Alough the law says in such cases that the iforcement of the peremptory writ must be spended until the merits of the controversy n be determined on appeal, the circuit urt pushed its determination to the bitter d of punishment, and in so doing exceeded t jurisdiction within the meaning of subdision 1 of section 642, L. O. L., supra.