Pacific Micronesian Line, Inc. v. New Zealand Insurance Company, Ltd.

This case is before us for the second time. The facts are set out in full in our earlier opinion of August 31, 1966, reported at 366 F.2d 333 . Briefly, the action concerns a quantity of rice which was listed on a bill of lading by the defendant-appellant, Pacific Micronesian Line, Inc., but was not delivered to the Truk Trading Company as specified. The plaintiff-appellee, New Zealand Insurance Company, Ltd., brought suit as Truk’s insurer and subrogee against appellant, on the basis of the latter’s failure to deliver. In our previous decision we held that 49 U.S.C. § 102 and Guam Civ.Code § 2128g were applicable to the controversy, and we stated,

We cited cases to show that 49 U.S.C. § 102

We then reversed the judgment of recovery which had been rendered by the District Court of Guam, and remanded for further proceedings and for a determination as to whether the Truk Trading Company had paid for the rice that was not delivered or had otherwise parted with value in reliance on appellant’s bill of lading and to its detriment.

Appellant now urges that the district court again erred in rendering judgment for the appellee “when the only new evidence established payment after…