While this case was tried in the district court entirely on depositions and documents and hence the exhortation of the “clearly erroneous” rule of McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20 (1954) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a) is to some extent ameliorated, Ward v. Wainwright, 450 F.2d 409, 412 (5th Cir. 1971), “[Nevertheless, where the conclusions of the trial judge may reasonably be inferred from the record, such conclusions should not be disturbed on appeal . . . even though conflicting inferences of equal reasonableness may be drawn from a review of the same body of evidence.” Skidmore v. Grueninger, 506 F.2d 716, 724 (5th Cir. 1975). See also Sicula Oceanica, S. A. v. Wilmar Marine Eng’r. & Sales Corp., 413 F.2d 1332, 1333 (5th Cir. 1969).

In this case, after carefully reviewing the entire record and applying the foregoing standard to the findings of the trial judge, we are of the firm opinion that said findings are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, on the basis of the trial court’s opinion, McKensie v. Sea Land Service, Inc., 430 F.Supp. 6 (E.D.La. 1975), the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.