W. E. Daniel and E. A. Dillard v. The First National Bank of Birmingham

RIVES, Circuit Judge.

At appellee’s request, we make clear that it was the district court’s findings of ultimate fact1 which we thought *805subject to review under the authorities collected in Galena Oaks Corp. v. Scofield, 5 Cir., 218 F.2d 217, 219, free from the restraint of the “clearly erroneous” rule. Appellee argues with much force that those findings resulted from inferences drawn by the district court as to the intention of the parties, and not from any “process of legal reasoning”. We do not agree, though the separation is difficult, and if we are mistaken in that respect, nevertheless,…