McLellan

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 *345 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…

(dissenting).

The complaint herein, which was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, alleged the death of Harry Soza as a result of the negligence of Minnie Cur-less in .the operation of an automobile, as to which negligence liability insurance had been issued by appellees. The complaint alleged, that suit was brought and judgment recovered against the special administrator of the estate of Minnie Curless for the sum of $7,500, and that the same was still unpaid, and the estate of Minnie Curless is without funds to pay the judgment. The general effect of the policies and of the judgment is pleaded.

It is held by the majority of this court that the judgment relied upon by the pleader is void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, that is, over the cause of action for tort because the complaint in that action did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, although, be it noted, the complaint is not before us. The pleader contented himself with alleging that the superior court of Arizona, a court of general jurisdiction, had rendered the judgment. I quote the. allegations of the complaint: “That on or about the 22nd day of August, 1932, this…