McLellan v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.
Decision Date | 20 November 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 7475.,7475. |
Citation | 80 F.2d 344 |
Parties | McLELLAN v. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN., et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
V. L. Hash, of Phœnix, Ariz., for appellant.
Redman, Alexander & Bacon, of San Francisco, Cal., Kibbey, Bennett, Gust, Smith & Rosenfeld, of Phœnix, Ariz., and Geo. J. Zech, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and DENMAN, Circuit Judges.
Error on the part of the court below in sustaining the demurrers to the appellant's complaint is urged as the basis of the present appeal.
The appellant brought an action against the appellees, in the superior court of Maricopa county, Ariz., seeking to recover damages of $5,000 from each of them. The suit was based upon a contract of insurance, to the rights under which the appellant claims to have been subrogated.
The third amended complaint, upon which the issues were presented to the court below, alleges, in substance, that Harry Soza died intestate on or about August 14, 1932; that thereafter, as the duly appointed and qualified special administrator of Soza's estate, the appellant instituted suit in the superior court of Maricopa county, Ariz., against the estate of Minnie Curless, deceased, to recover damages for injuries causing the death of the appellant's intestate through the alleged negligent operation of an automobile owned and operated by the said Minnie Curless, on or about August 14, 1932; and that on or about January 21, 1933, the appellant obtained a judgment in that suit, amounting to $7,500, against the estate of Minnie Curless.
The complaint further sets forth that, on March 2, 1932, each of the appellees executed an insurance policy whereby each appellee company, jointly and severally, agreed with the decedent, Minnie Curless, for a consideration, to pay $5,000 "for a personal injury or death resulting therefrom by reason of the" operation of the above-mentioned automobile, and to pay any loss or claim by reason of injury resulting in death, in a sum not to exceed $5,000. The policy is then set out in the pleading.
The complaint further alleges that the judgment recovered by the appellant has not been satisfied out of the Curless estate, which is without assets with which to pay it.
One of the allegations of the complaint is that each of the appellees was duly notified of the pendency of the action in the state court, and that each refused to defend or adjust, etc.
On petition of the appellees, the cause was removed from the state court to the court below.
Each appellee filed demurrers, an answer, and a motion for judgment dismissing the cause. The grounds for the demurrers were misjoinder of parties, misjoinder of causes of action, and the failure of the complaint to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The court below sustained the separate demurrers of the appellees, and entered a judgment dismissing the cause. From that judgment the present appeal has been taken.
As the appellant points out in his brief, the sole issue here presented is whether or not, under the Constitution and the statutes of Arizona, there is a survival of a right of action in favor of the appellant administrator to recover against the administrator of the estate of the deceased alleged wrongdoer, damages for wrongful injury inflicted upon the appellant's intestate. This was the sole basis of the decision of the court below on the demurrers.
Accordingly, in our view of the case, it is unnecessary to consider the other questions raised by the appellees' demurrers.
There must first be disposed of, however, the contention urged by the appellant that the "remedy" of the appellees, "if they desire to object to the judgment obtained" in the state court, "is by a direct attack upon that judgment, and not by way of a collateral attack such as is made in the instant case." In support of this argument, the appellant asserts that under the contract of the appellees with the decedent Minnie Curless, "they were within the meaning of the rule making prior judgments conclusive, in this, that they were directly interested in the subject-matter of the suit and had a right to make a defense," etc.
It is hornbook law that a judgment wholly void for want of jurisdiction on the part of the court that rendered it, may be attacked collaterally. In Brecht v. Hammons, 35 Ariz. 383, 387, 388, 278 P. 381, 382, the court said:
Limited as the foregoing language is to judgments based upon causes of action not arising under the common law, it accords with general law.
In East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia R. Co. v. Southern Telegraph Co., 112 U.S. 306, 310, 5 S.Ct. 168, 169, 28 L.Ed. 746, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: "The remedy is statutory only, and every court which takes jurisdiction for its enforcement is limited in its powers by the statute under which alone it can act."
In Galpin v. Page, 9 Fed.Cas. 1126, 1132, 1133, No. 5,206, Mr. Circuit Justice Field elaborated upon this rule in the following language:
In the instant case, it is not disputed that the right of action is purely statutory, and that a suit of this nature did not survive at common law. In the language of Mr. Circuit Justice Field, the jurisdiction is "extraordinary," and "not according to the course of the common law." The judgment of the state court, if in excess of the statutory authority, is void, and may be collaterally attacked.
This court has so held. In Murray v. American Surety Co. (C.C.A.) 70 F. 341, 346, the following language was used:
See, also, Broadmoor Land Co. v. Curr (C.C.A.8) 142 F. 421, 423, 424.
This doctrine has been repeatedly recognized by state courts. In Dailey v. Superior Court, 112 Cal. 94, 97, 44 P. 458, 459, 32 L.R.A. 273, 53 Am.St.Rep. 160, the Supreme Court of the state "annulled" an order of the lower court forbidding the performance of a play, and said: "We are entirely clear that the court had no jurisdiction to make the order which forms the basis of this proceeding, for such order was an attempted infringement upon rights guarantied to every citizen by section 9, art. 1, of the constitution of this state."
The Dailey Case was cited, with apparent approval by the Supreme Court of the United States in Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 719, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357.
The Court of Appeals of New York has repeatedly held that "a court authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, if it undertakes to exercise the power and jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, acquires no jurisdiction, and its judgment is a nullity, and will so be treated when it comes in question, either directly or collaterally." Risley v. Phenix Bank, 83 N.Y. 318, 337, 38 Am. Rep. 421, affirmed Phœnix Bank v. Risley, 111 U.S. 125, 4 S.Ct. 322, 28 L.Ed. 374; O'Donoghue v. Boies, 159 N.Y. 87, 53 N. E. 537, 540, and the many cases there cited; Doey v. Clarence P. Howland Co., 224 N.Y. 30, 120 N.E. 53, 55. See, also, Goldberg v. Levine, 199 App.Div. 292, 192 N.Y.S. 124, 127, 128; Davidson v. Ream, 178 App.Div. 362, 164 N.Y.S. 1037, 1041, 1042; Wright v. Atwood, 33 Idaho, 455, 461, 462, 195 P. 625; 15 C.J. 842; 15 R.C. L. 854.
In 34 C.J. 531, the general...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grant v. McAuliffe
...tortfeasor a plea in abatement must be sustained. McClure v. Johnson, 50 Ariz. 76, 82, 69 P.2d 573. See also McLellan v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 9 Cir., 80 F.2d 344. Thus, the answer to the question whether the causes of action against Pullen survived and are maintainable ag......
-
Johnson v. McKinney
... ... Nat. Bank, 283 N.Y. 350, 28 N.E.2d 868; McLellan v ... Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford, Conn., 9 ... ...
-
Johnson v. McKinney
...263; Nervo v. Mealey, 175 Misc. 952, 25 N.Y.S. 2d 632; In re Chase Nat. Bank, 283 N.Y. 350, 28 N.E.2d 868; McLellan v. Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford, Conn., 9 Cir., 80 F.2d 344; Carroll v. Berger, 255 Mass. 132, 150 N.E. 870. In Lynch v. State ex rel. Killebrew, 179 Tenn. 339, 166 S.......
-
Mull v. Wienbarg
... ... operation of an automobile which caused injury to the first ... plaintiff and death ... 158, 168, 106 A. 238, ... Taylor vs. Keefe, 134 Conn. 156, 56 A.2d 768, ... State vs. McPhail, 182 Miss. 360, ... In ... the case of McLellan vs. Automobile Ins. Co., 80 ... F.2d 344 (1935) counsel ... ...