In  Reynee  v.  Dumont,  130  U.  8.  364,  394,  the  court  cites  Bmbry  ▼.  Palmer^
ivpra,  with  approval,  and  says:  **The  acceptance  by  appellants  of  what  was
confessedly  theirs  cannot  be  construed  into  an  admission  that  the  decree
they  seek  to  reverse  was  not  erroneous;  nor  does  it  take  from  appelleee  any*
thing,  on  the  reversal  of  the  decree,  to  which  they  would  otherwise  be  enti-
tled."

In  the  two  preceding  cases,  the  decrees  of  the  courts  below  were  not  void
(as  here),  but  merely  erroneous.  The  reasoning,  however,  applies  a  fortiori
to  void  decrees;  for  void  decrees  may  be  impeached  collaterally  as  well  as  by
direct  proceedings,  while  erroneous  decrees  can  only  be  impeached  by  direct
proceedings:  Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  714;  Cooper  v.  ReynoUU,  10  WalL
318;  Need/iam  v.  T/utyer,  147  Masa.  536.
The  caises,  cited  by  the  court  in  the  principal  case,  of  Clay  v.  Smith,  3  Pet.
