Task: songer_appbus

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 "private business and its executives". 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.

HICKS, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, as receiver of the First National Bank of Elizabethton, Tenn., herein called the bank, sued appellee in equity to recover upon a check in the amount of $1,-278.52.
The bill alleged: That on October 11, 1931, appellee had given the check, drawn upon the Merchants’ & Traders’ Bank at Mountain City, Tenn., to Wesley Street, who on October 14 indorsed it without restriction and deposited it in the bank, then a going concern and doing a general banking business and where he had a checking account; that he was given credit for it, and a deposit slip was issued to him which embodied the only contract with the bank with reference thereto; that the deposit immediately became subject to his check, and that, so far as the records of the bank show, it would have been paid out at any time in the event a check were presented against it for payment before the bank closed its doors; that the check was sent through the regular channels for collection and was presented for payment at the Merchants’ & Traders’ Bank on October 19, but, the bank having closed its doors on October 17, the Merchants’ & Traders’ Bank by direction of appellee stopped payment of the check and returned it to appellant, who on that date had been appointed receiver; that appellee wrongfully stopped payment at the request of Street to whom he afterwards paid the full amount of the check.
The deposit slip was filed as Exhibit B to the bill and bears the notation “all items credited subject to payment.”
The gravamen of the bill is that when the check was deposited the bank became its owner, and appellant is entitled to recover its amount to be distributed as provided in 12 U. S. C. § 194 (12 USCA § 194).
Appellee filed an answer and, in paragraph II thereof, averred that the bill “fails to allege any matter of either law or equity entitling the plaintiff to the relief prayed for, * * * and, taking all the aver-ments of the bill as true, he has violated no duty he owed to the plaintiff. * * * ” Upon this averment the court on motion of appellee dismissed the bill. No other part of the answer is material here. Conway et al. v. White, 292 F. 837, 840 (C. C. A. 2).
The basis for the decree is not disclosed, but we assume that the court concluded from the averments of the bill, taken as true, that the bank never became the owner of the check.
We do not concur. We are not unaware that there is a diversity of opinion among the state courts as to whether upon such a deposit the relationship of debtor and creditor arises between a bank and its customer. The case must be differentiated from Dakin, Receiver, v. Bayly, Liquidator, 290 U. S. 143, 54 S. Ct. 113, 78 L. Ed. 229, 90 A. L. R. 999, where a state statute controls, and from St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Johnston, 133 U. S. 566, 10 S. Ct. 390, 33 L. Ed. 683, where the bank was known to be hopelessly insolvent at the time the deposit was received. The question presented is one of general commercial law (Brooklyn City & N. R. Co. v. National Bank, 102 U. S. 14, 31, 26 L. Ed. 61; Security Nat. Bank v. Old Nat. Bank, 241 F. 1, 8 (C. C. A. 8); In re Jarmulowsky et al., 249 F. 319, 321, L. R. A. 1918E, 634 (C. C. A. 2); Dickson v. First Nat. Bank, etc., 26 F.(2d) 411 (C. C. A. 8), and it is our duty to exercise an independent judgment based upon the controlling decisions of the federal courts.
In City of Douglas v. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 271 U. S. 489, 492, 46 S. Ct. 554, 556, 70 L. Ed. 1051, the court said: “For when paper is indorsed without restriction by a depositor, and is at once passed to his credit by the bank to which he delivers it, he becomes the creditor of the bank; the bank becomes owner of the paper, and in making the collection is not the agent for the depositor. Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283, 25 S. Ct. 243, 49 L. Ed. 482; Union Electric Steel Co. v. Imperial Bank (C. C. A.) 286 F. 857; General Amer. Tank Car Corp. v. Goree (C. C. A.) 296 F. 32, 36; In re Ruskay (C. C. A.) 5 F.(2d) 143; Scott, Cases on Trusts, p. 64, note, par. 8, pp. 66, 67.”
In addition to the cases cited in the above quotation, see, also, Equitable Trust Co. v. Rochling, 275 U. S. 248, 252, 48 S. Ct. 58, 72 L. Ed. 264; Security Nat. Bank v. Old Nat. Bank, supra; State Y. M. C. A. v. Picher (D. C. Me.) 8 F. Supp. 412; Williams v. Cox, 97 Tenn. 555, 559, 37 S. W. 282.
The printed notation on the deposit slip, to wit, “all items credited subject to payment,” did not invalidate the bank’s title. This notation was indicative only that the bank would charge the check back to the depositor, if it were not collected, and not that credit was not given at the time of the deposit. City of Douglas v. Federal Reserve Bank, supra; Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283, 297, 25 S. Ct. 243, 49 L. Ed. 482; Johnson v. First Nat. B. & T. Co. (D. C.) 8 F. Supp. 788, 790.
Appellant urges that an averment in the bill that the bank held the check “for the benefit of the said Wesley Street” was an admission that it was acting as the agent of Street, but this contention at once appears untenable when the quoted phrase is read in connection with the full paragraph in which it occurs. We conclude that an “insufficiency of fact to constitute a valid cause of action in equity” (Equity'Rule 29 [28 USCA § 723]) does not clearly appear upon the face of the billj and that the case should have proceeded to a hearing.
The decree is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to transfer it to the law side of the docket for such further proceedings as are consistent with the rules of practice in law cáses.
The question whether appellant had an adequate remedy at law suggests itself, but, having failed to move to transfer the hill to the law side or otherwise object to equity jurisdiction, the appellee has waived the point. Alliance Ins. Co. v. Alper-Salvage Co., 19 F.(2d) 828, 830, footnote 2 (C. C. A. 6).

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 1