The weight of authority and the holdings of this court are to the effect that under the facts and circumstances disclosed in this case and established by the defendant's own testimony she is precluded from attacking the judgment or applying for a vacation thereof. It is a general rule approved by the great weight of authority including the decisions of this court that a party who knowingly accepts a substantial benefit under a judgment is precluded from afterward assailing the correctness or validity thereof. It is held that such acceptance operates as a waiver or release of errors and irregularities, and estops the party who accepts the benefit from afterward moving to vacate the judgment, (34 CJ pp 362, 363; 4 CJS p 414; 49 CJS p 512; 1 Freeman, Judgments 5th ed § 265, pp 529, 530; 2 Cal Jur p 229, § 64; People v. Raquette Falls Land Co., 100 Misc. 601, 603, 166 N.Y.S 464; Freiberg v. Le Clair, 78 Wis. 164, 47 N.W. 178; Whitney v. Chesbro, 244 App. Div. 594, 280 N.Y.S 138; Cratin v. Cratin, 178 Miss. 881, 173 So. 415, 174 So 255, 256; Newcomer v. Newcomer, 199 Iowa 290, 201 N.W. 579; Reppert v. Reppert, 214 Iowa 17, 241 N.W. 487; Stehli v. Thompson, 151 Fla. 566, 10 So.2d 123; Deering Harvester Co. v. Donovan, 82 Minn. 162, 84 N.W. 745, 83 Am St Rep 417; McKain v. Mullen, 65 W. Va. 558, 64 S.E. 829, 29 LRA NS 1); moving for a new trial (Storke v. Storke, 132 Cal. 349, 64 P. 578; Boyle v. Boyle, 19 N.D. 522, 525, 126 N.W. 229, 230, 231); or maintaining an appeal or proceeding in error to review the judgment (2 Am Jur 521, Appeal and Error §§ 957 et seq.; 4 CJS 414 et seq.; Tyler v. Shea, 4 N.D. 377, 61 NW 468, 50 Am St Rep 660; Williams v. Williams, 6 N.D. 269, 69 N.W. 47; Tuttle v. Tuttle, 19 N.D. 748, 124 N.W. 429; Easton v. Lockhart, 62 N.D. 767, 89 N.W. 75; Larabee v. Larabee, 128 Neb. 560, 259 N.W. 520; Gerbig v. Gerbig, 60 Nev. 292, 108 P.2d 317).

An appeal is the appropriate remedy." ( Matter of Whitney v. Chesbro, 244 App. Div. 594; see, also, Klein v. Fairberg, 243 App. Div. 609, and Boslov v. Boslov, 177 Misc. 817, affd. 264 App. Div. 943.) All concur.

These circumstances impel a denial of the relief sought. ( Matter of Whitney v. Chesbro, 244 A.D. 594.) The contention of the plaintiff that because of the authority of National City Bank v. Gelfert ( supra) an error of law was committed by the inclusion of the clauses of the judgment here sought to be vacated, is untenable.