Eviction decree not a nullity where objection is only procedural; execution cannot be resisted by collateral attack.

An eviction decree is not a nullity merely because the tenant alleges that the benefit of deposit under a successor rent law was not afforded during the suit. A decree is void only where the court lacked inherent jurisdiction and the defect is apparent on the record; a wrong exercise of jurisdiction or procedural non-compliance does not make it inexecutable. The tenant's objection amounted at most to a procedural irregularity, which had to be raised in proceedings challenging the decree and could not be used as a collateral attack in execution. The executing court was bound by the decree and could not go behind it.

---

---

Issues: Whether an eviction decree, alleged to have been passed without affording the tenant the benefit of deposit during the pendency of the suit under the successor rent law, was a nullity and therefore inexecutable in execution proceedings.

Analysis: A decree is void only where the court lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass it and the defect is patent on the face of the record. A mere wrong exercise of jurisdiction or non-compliance with the procedure prescribed by law does not render the decree a nullity. The tenant's grievance, at the highest, disclosed a procedural irregularity. Such a plea could have been raised in proceedings challenging the decree, but it could not be introduced as a collateral attack in execution. The executing court was therefore bound by the decree and could not go behind it.

Conclusion: The decree was not without jurisdiction and was not a nullity. The objection to executability failed and the decree remained executable.

---