The opinion
COSGRAVE, District Judge.
The Supreme Court of the State of California has construed the law in question here, the California Retail Sales Tax, St.Cal.1933, p. 2599, as a tax upon *250 the seller and not upon the buyer. Western Lithograph Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 11 Cal.2d 156 , 78 P.2d 731 , 117 A.L.R. 838 . This interpretation is binding on the United States Courts. Erie Railway Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 , 58 S.Ct. 817 , 82 L.Ed. 1188 , 114 A.L.R. 1487 . The facts seem to bring the case within the reasoning of James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 , 58 S.Ct. 208 , 82 L.Ed. 155 , 114 A.L.R. 318 , and I am compelled to disagree with the learned referee in bankruptcy.
The amendment to the act of June 30, 1939, Section 5 (f), St.Cal.1939, p. 2173, could not operate to invalidate the obligations which had already become fixed. Estate of Stanford, 126 Cal. 112 , 54 P. 259 , 58 P. 462 , 45 L.R.A. 788 .
The petition for review is granted, and order of the referee is reversed.