The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. We adopt the following portions of the opinion of the District Court, whereby judgment was ordered for the Appellee:

. "‘Rider * * * * * “ T. The attached bond is hereby extended to cover- “ ‘Forgery Insuring Clause “ ‘ (D) Any loss (1) through accepting cashing or paying forged or altered cheeks * * *, or (2) through tlie establishment of any credit to any customer or the giving of any value on the faith of such checks * * *, or (3) through transferring, paying or delivering any funds or Property or establishing any credit or giving any value on the faith of any written instructions or advices, directed to the Insured, authorizing or acknowledging the transfer, payment, delivery or receipt of funds or Property, which instruction or advices purport to have been signed or endorsed by any customer of tlie Insured * * * but which instructions or advices either bear tlie forged signature or endorsement or have been altered without the knowledge and consent of such customer * * ®, or (5) through the payment by the Insured of promissory notes which are payable at the Insured or which purport to be notes payable at the Insured under instructions from any depositor thereof, and which are actually paid by the Insured out of funds on deposit with it, and which prove to be forged or altered or which bear forged endorsements * * * * . "Title 12 U.S.C.A. § 1761 et seq. . "People v. Thorn, 1934, 138 Cal.App. 714 , 33 P.2d 5 (The California District Court of Appeal has recently distinguished the case from the issue presented here); People v. McKenna, 1938, 11 Cal.2d 327 , 79 P.2d 1065 ; People v. McPherson, 1907, 6 Cal.App. 266 , 91 P. 1098 ; (substantially different in that defendant actually signed the name of another without authority instead of, as in the case now being decided, signed his own name for an unauthorized purpose.) “Quick Service Box Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., 7 Cir., 1938, 95 F.2d 15 . (The decision there supports plaintiff’s theory here.) However, in Fitzgibbons Boiler Co. v. Employers’ Liability Assur. Corp., 2 Cir., 1939, 105 F.2d 893 ; Augustus Hand, J., states that the Quick Service Box Co. case represents a minority view. . "This Court does not overlook that in some situations a federal court, in a diversity suit, may refuse to follow a state supreme court decision. It is not necessary that a case be expressly overruled in order to lose its persuasive force. Cf. Mason v. American Emery Wheelworks, 1 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 906 . The law is in part an evoluntionary process of judicial reasoning. If convinced that the California Supremo Court would no longer follow the Bendit case, then, under the Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins decision [ 304 U.S. 64 , 58 S.Ct. 817 , 82 L.Ed. 1188 ], this Court should apply the same standards which it believes the highest court of this State would use. . "Pasadena Investment Co. v. Peerless Casualty Company, 1955, 132 Cal.App.2d 328 , 282 P.2d 124 [ 52 A.L.R.2d 203 ], This decision on local law by a highly respected intermediate court of appeal must be accorded great weight. West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 1940, 311 U.S. 223 , 61 S.Ct. 179 , 85 L. Ed. 139 .”