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.

Opinion:
STEVENSON v. FISK.
No. 11210.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec. 7, 1945.
John Sayles and J. McAllister Stevenson, both of Abilene, Tex., for appellant.
W. E. Lessing, of Abilene, Tex., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, McCORD, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
McCORD, Circuit Judge.
J. McAllister Stevenson seeks by petition to have Frances Fisk declared a bankrupt and to establish a claim against her provable in bankruptcy. After charging the required allegations to meet the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., the petition further alleges: “Judgment recovered December 18, 1935, against Record Publishing Company, a corporation, in the amount of $5,680.61, for the payment of which G. Fisk, the late husband of respondent, Frances Fisk, became personally liable by reason of non-payment of a greater amount due said corporation for subscription to its capital stock when, on September 13th, 1939, return was made upon execution issued under said judgment showing no property of said corporation to be found subject to execution, and for the payment of which respondent, Frances Fisk, became personally liable when, after the death of said G. Fisk, on December 29th 1940, and prior to January 16th, 1941, she the said respondent, assumed the payment of all debts of the community estate of herself and her deceased husband.”
Over one year after the filing of the petition, and motion to dismiss, the court passed upon and entered a decree, of which the important part for decision here is: “On this the 18 day of October, 1944, came on to be heard the motion of respondent, Frances Fisk, praying that this cause be dismissed for failure to show any debt due by this respondent to the petitioner, J. McAllister Stevenson, provable in bankruptcy, and the Court having heard said motion and the evidence thereon, is of the opinion that the same is well taken and should be sustained. * * * ”
No objection or exception is shown to the taking of evidence in support of the motion and no evidence is set out in the record. We are, therefore, authorized to indulge the presumption that such evidence was in support of the judgment to dismiss and is in all respects correct. Locals Nos. 1470, 1469, and No. 1512 of International Longshoremen’s Association v. Southern Pac. Co., 5 Cir., 131 F.2d 605. Furthermore, it appears that the plaintiff has wholly failed to comply with Rule 75(d), 28 U.S.C.A. following Section 723c.
The brief of appellant shows that the judgment here under consideration and which was the subject of Stevenson’s petition, was finally held to be erroneous and of no effect by the Court of Appeals of Texas. That court reversed and rendered the judgment which petitioner had obtained and directed a verdict to be entered for Frances Fisk, and the Supreme Court thereafter denied application for certiorari. Fisk v. Stevenson, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 432.
It becomes manifest that the reversal of this case would work no benefit to the plaintiff.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "financial institution". 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

Answer: 5