opinion: STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO. et al. v. AMBROSE.
  No. 10238.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
  Dec. 2, 1942.
  Frank J. Scurlock, of Dallas, Tex., for appellants.
  J. N. Saye and W. T. Saye, both of Longview, Tex., for appellee.
  Before HOLMES and McCORD, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.
  McCORD, Circuit Judge.
  On February 23, 1940, over the protest and objection of Stanolind Oil and Gas Company, the Railroad Commission of Texas granted to W. D. Ambrose a permit to drill eight additional oij wells on his lease in the East Texas Oil Field. Thereupon Stanolind brought suit against Am-brose and the Commission, and sought to cancel the permit and enjoin the drilling of the additional wells. At Stanolind’s request, and upon the filing of a $10,000 bond in court, a preliminary injunction was issued on March 16, 1940, and Ambrose was notified that he had been temporarily enjoined and restrained from drilling or producing from any of the eight wells allowed by the permit. After trial of the action on the merits, the court found for Ambrose, and on June 19, 1940, final decree was entered and the preliminary injunction was dissolved. On appeal the judgment of the District Court was affirmed by this Court. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Ambrose, 5 Cir., 118 F.2d 847.
  It is without dispute that for more than ninety days Ambrose was prevented by the injunction from drilling wells on his lease. He, therefore, brought this action against Stanolind and its bondsman to recover damages alleged to have been suffered because of this delay.
  On the trial the court permitted the evidence to take a wide range: The life of the wells, the number of barrels of oil to be captured each day under the rules of the Railroad Commission, and the cost of drilling and bringing in the wells. The life of the wells was fixed by experts at from twenty to twenty-two years, and the cost of drilling was established. The court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and, after going into nearly every phase of the evidence which threw light on the issues, he found the number of days of production lost on account of the injunction, the number of barrels of oil lost by Ambrose as the result of such delay, and the market value of such oil in the stock tanks on the lease after deducting certain production costs in the way of production and pipe line taxes, royalty, etc. It was found that Ambrose had sustained a net loss of $5,357.43, and judgment for this amount was entered against Stanolind and its surety.
  Having been wrongfully enjoined, Ambrose was entitled to recover just and adequate compensation for the loss which was the natural and proximate result of the injunction. Galveston City R. Co. v. Miller, Tex.Civ.App., 38 S.W. 1132.
  While much of the evidence in the record is in dispute, there was substantial evidence to support the findings, conclusions, and judgment.
  The judgment is affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "unclear". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto industry chemical industry drug industry food industry oil & gas industry clothing & textile industry electronic industry alcohol and tobacco industry other unclear