opinion: ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, a body corporate of the State of New York, Appellant, v. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, a body corporate of the State of Connecticut, Appellee.
  No. 9621.
  United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
  Argued Nov. 20, 1964.
  Decided Nov. 20, 1964.
  Richard H. James, Baltimore, Md. (Paul M. Higinbothom, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellant.
  M. King Hill, Jr., Baltimore, Md. (Smith, Somerville & Case, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.
  Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAYNSWORTH and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  In resolving this controversy between two automobile liability insurers, the District Court found that the offending automobile was owned by the dealer rather than the bank. The basic agreement between the dealer and the bank, under which the dealer’s sales were financed, was ambiguous as to the ownership of repossessed vehicles in the possession of the dealer. The basic agreement was susceptible of the construction that there was a conditional sale to the dealer of each repossessed vehicle delivered to it by the bank, as contended by the bank’s insurer. It was also susceptible to the construction that there was a consignment for sale of such vehicles, the contention of the dealer’s insurer.
  To solve the problem, the District Court appropriately looked to the course of dealing between the parties. He found there clear evidence supporting his finding that there had been a conditional sale of the particular vehicle and others similarly handled. The finding, not clearly erroneous, is binding.
  Justification of the finding and the legal conclusions flowing from it clearly appear in the District Court’s opinion. We affirm for the reasons stated there.
  Affirmed.
  Royal Indemnity Company v. Aetna Insurance Company, D.C., 231 F.Supp. 057.
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 "financial institution". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: bank insurance savings and loan credit union other pension fund other financial institution or investment company unclear