Beck v. Downey

198 F.2d 626

Opinions

PER curiam:.

On February 2, 1951, we filed our opinion and decision in this case reversing the judgment of the District Court. 9 Cir., 191 F.2d 150.

On March 31, 1952, the Supreme Court granted appellees’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and made the following order:

“PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in the light of Beck v. West Coast Life Ins. Co. [38 Cal.2d -], 241 P.2d 544, decided by the Supreme Court of California on March 21, 1952.” 343 U.S. 912, 72 S.Ct. 646.

On June 11, 1952, after hearing argument, we made an order of remand to the District Court to be effective in the event the parties were unable or unwilling to stipulate as to certain additional facts. Being now of the view that there is no need for any remand, and that there are no additional facts of any possible significance that, as a matter of law, bear upon the decision in this cause, we hereby vacate and set aside our order of June 11, 1952.

Pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court, we have further considered the cause in the light of Beck v. West Coast Life Insurance Co., 38 Cal.2d-, 241 P.2d 544. Upon reconsideration, we adhere to our former decision 191 F.2d 150.

Beck v. West Coast Life Insurance Company, 38 Cal.2d-, 241 P.2d 544, involved a contract of insurance, made, executed and to be performed in the State of California.

Footnotes

•

* Hence it was a contract governed by and to be interpreted according to the law of the State of California. In the case before us, the contract was neither made, executed, delivered nor to be performed in California. Hence its interpretation is not governed by nor to be interpreted pursuant to the law of the State of California. The decision in Beck v. West Coast Life Insurance Co., supra, is therefore neither binding upon us as a decision of the highest court of the State of California, upon a question of California law, nor is it apropos here.

We therefore re-adopt our opinion and decision heretofore made, 191 F.2d 150.

The judgment below is accordingly reversed and the District Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Administrator.

While not specifically so stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court of California, the record in that cause so shows.