Task: songer_appfiduc

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.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

PER CURIAM.
. Appeal from an order in the Supreme Court of the District dismissing appellant’s petition for eaveat of the will of Mary A. Chapman, who died testate in this District on May 7, 1931, survived by her husband and leaving as her heir at law and next of kin a sister, Margaret Mealy, wife of appellee.
On July 22, 1932, appellee, in his own right and as committee of Margaret Mealy, filed a petition for the probate of the will, and set forth that he had been appointed committee of Margaret Mealy, his wife, under an order of the Supreme Court of the District adjudging her a lunatic; that “Margaret Mealy is a sister and only heir at law of the decedent.”
On February 17, 1933, appellant filed a petition for caveat to the probate of the will, setting forth that she filed it “in her own behalf as next of kin of Mary A. Chapman, deceased, and as a party in interest; also by authorization and on behalf of Sarah Glaseoe, Joseph Terry, John M. Parker, and Anna C. Holmes, next of kin of Mary A. Chapman, deceased, and parties in interest.”
On February 24, 1933, appellee moved to dismiss the foregoing petition for caveat, and on March 14, 1933, the court below entered the following order: “Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss the petition for caveat, filed herein, and it appearing from the petition for probate that Margaret Mealy, a sister of the decedent, is the only heir at law, and the petition for caveat failing to show the relationship of the petitioner to the decedent, or any interest which would authorize her to contest the will, it is, * * * ordered that
the petition for caveat be and the same hereby is dismissed.” ' From the above order this appeal was taken.
Section 59, tit. 29, D. C. Code, 1929 (section 137, D. C. Code, 1901) authorizes “any person in interest” to file a caveat to a will. In Angell v. Groff, 42 App. D. C. 198, we ruled that “the interest which a person must possess to enable him to assail the validity of a will is such that, had the testator died intestate, he would have been entitled to a distributive share in the estate.”
In her petition for caveat in the present ease appellant alleges that she and those on whose behalf she files the petition are “next of kin of Mary A. Chapman, deceased,” but she fails to state the degree of her or-their relationship to the decedent. In a prior “petition to intervene as caveator,” appellant set forth that she filed, the petition “in her own behalf as first cousin of Mary A. Chapman, deceased, also by authorization and on behalf of Sarah Glaseoe, Joseph Terry, John M. Parker, first cousins of the said deceased, and Anna Cecelia Holmes, an aunt of said deceased.” That petition was dismissed on January 12, 1933, and no appeal was taken.
In her present petition appellant should have stated her relationship to the decedent, that the court might determine whether she was “a person in interest” arid therefore authorized to challenge the validity of the will. The averment that she is next of kin of the decedent is a mere conclusion of law, and hence is not admitted by the motion to dismiss. Irving v. Rees, 146 App. Div. 703, 131 N. Y. S. 523; Combs v. Cardwell, 164 Ky. 542, 175 S. W. 1009; Allen v. Gates, 145 Ga. 652, 89 S. E. 821. In her “petition to intervene as caveator,” appellant set forth her relationship to the decedent, from which it appears that she is not “a person in interest.” In her present petition she failed to state that relationship, but merely indulged in conclusions of law inconsistent with the actual facts —obviously an effort to circumvent the defect apparent on the face of her previous “petition to intervene as caveator.”
The order of thé court dismissing the petition is correct, and is affirmed, with costs.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 1