Task: songer_respond1_8_3

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 respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous", specifically "fiduciary, executor, or trustee". Your task is to determine which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant.

PER CURIAM.
The appellant did not choose to avail himself of the method laid down by equity rule 75. He never filed a praecipe at all, which should state those parts of the “record to be incorporated,” and which should be accompanied by proof of service upon the appellee. This is quite different from “the evidence to be included in the record,” a statement, of which must be filed at or before the filing of the praseipe, of which the appellee should be notified. Instead of this he attempted to get an agreement with the appellee, and upon failing to do so filed the statement of evidence, with an indorsement that it was his “praecipe” of the evidence. This was not a praecipe at all; moreover, it was never served on the appellee. Nothing was accomplished by it.
The parties thereafter kept on with their negotiations with increasing acerbity until they broke off communications in February, and the appellee procured an ex parte order dismissing the appeal, of which the appellant got notice on February 28th. Even then he did nothing until the appellee moved to secure a repetition of the dismissal, this time on notice. Then the appellant moved for leave to lodge and file the statement and a praecipe.
There will, of course, often be occasions when an appellant, who has failed to proceed under the rules, can be excused. Among these will be the fact that the appellee has led him to expect that no advantage will be taken of his defaults. We cannot see that this is the ease here. On the contrary, it is not shown that the appellee did not in good faith try to co-operate in settling the statement; any inference to be drawn is rather that the appellant did not wish to expedite the appeal. This is especially apparent from the delay of over two months after notice of the ex parte order of dismissal. Had the appellant sought relief seasonably, the cause would have been argued at this term; as it is, it would have to go over to the autumn, and the settlement which the bill challenges must be held up meanwhile. The case was one for dispatch, and we can see no excuse for the appellant’s delays.
Motion to vacate denied.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous", specifically "fiduciary, executor, or trustee". Which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant?
A. trustee in bankruptcy - institution
B. trustee in bankruptcy - individual
C. executor or administrator of estate - institution
D. executor or administrator of estate - individual
E. trustees of private and charitable trusts - institution
F. trustee of private and charitable trust - individual
G. conservators, guardians and court appointed trustees for minors, mentally incompetent
H. other fiduciary or trustee
I. specific subcategory not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: H