opinion: NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION, Appellant, v. INLAND PROPERTIES, INC., Transamerican Marketing Corp. and United Security Life Insurance Company, Appellees.
  No. 19467.
  United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
  Oct. 14, 1969.
  Guy Amsler, Jr., of Barber, Henry, Thurman, McCaskill & Amsler, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
  Edward L. Wright, of Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee, United Security Life Ins. Co.
  Before MATTHES, GIBSON and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  In this diversity action appellant appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing with prejudice appellant’s complaint against appellee United Security Life Insurance Company, referred to herein as United.
  The pivotal issue litigated in the district court was the liability of United to appellant on a written contract of guaranty in the form of a letter, allegedly executed on behalf of United by its former president, W. L. DeLong. More specifically, the Court was required to decide whether DeLong had actual or apparent authority to bind United by the guaranty upon which appellant’s claim for relief is premised. Judge Henley, in a soundly reasoned opinion, persuasively demonstrated that DeLong lacked such authority. 286 F.Supp. 173, 176-182 (E.D.Ark.1968).
  We reject as untenable appellant’s contention that the evidence established as a matter of law that the instrument under consideration constituted a valid and binding obligation of United, and that consequently the district court’s findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous.
  We have canvassed the voluminous record and are convinced that the evidence clearly supports the judgment of dismissal. Indeed, we find scant, if any, probative evidence to support appellant’s claim. The district court was fully justified in finding on the evidence presented that DeLong had no authority to bind United by the instrument sued on. Certainly, analysis of the entire record does not leave us with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948).
  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