Task: songer_r_bus

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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

DIETRICH, Circuit Judge.
On June 27, 3923, the appellant entered into a written contract with the appellee, under the terms of which the latter agreed to sell, and the former agreed to buy, 2,000 shares of the preferred capital stock of the Dollar Portland Lumber Company, a corporation. The agreed purchase price was $200,000, “payable in four (4) annual installments of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) each, on the first days of May, in each of the years 3924 to 1927 inclusive, plus in the ease of each payment to be made hereunder, a sum equal to all unpaid accrued cumulative dividends upon the stock.” Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the appellee deposited the four certificates for 500 shares each with the Central Trust Company of Illinois, with instructions to deliver one to the appellant when and as each payment was made to it for the account of appellee.
The contract also contains the following provisions: “In the event that default be made in any payment by the purchaser, and said default shall continue for the period of ten (10) days, then and in that event said Bank (the trust company) shall, upon the demand of the Seller, return to the Seller all certificates of stock not theretofore delivered, or as to which said Buyer shall not then be entitled to deliver, but otherwise said Seller shall not be entitled to the redelivery of said stock. * * * Prior to the delivery of any of said stock the Seller shall be entitled to receive any and all dividends declared and paid thereon and to exercise any and all rights of stockholders in connection therewith. * * * In the event that the Buyer default in any payment made on account of the purchase price, the Seller may, at its election, terminate this contract as to the purchase and sale of stock not theretofore delivered and paid for, or at its election may continue this agreement in full force and effect and declare the entire balance of the purchase price immediately duo, owing and unpaid, and sue to collect the balance of the purchase price as declared due.”
Appellant paid the first three installments, but on the 1st day of May, 3.927, refused payment of the last one. Such refusal having continued for a period of ten days, by letter appellee demanded of appellant the sum of $50,000, plus $7,000, which latter amount represented the unpaid accrued cumulative dividends. By the letter appellee further advised appellant that it elected to continue the contract in force and effect and to declare the entire balance of the purchase price immediately due and payable, and further that the remaining certificate for 500 shares would remain on deposit with the trust company under the agreement subject to appellant’s order. No further payment having been made, the seller brought this suit, and from a judgment for $57,000 defendant appeals.
The only contention of appellant was and is that the contract was merely an option whereby it could purchase the stock in controversy at its will. We are of the opinion that a proposition so clearly devoid of merit does not warrant discussion. The contract definitely expresses an absolute obligation to sell and an absolute obligation to buy, and the appellant could not by its own default convert such an agreement into a mere option, without the consent of the appellee.
Affirmed.
The opinion not only failed to include the essential finding, but indicated that the evidence did not justify.

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

Answer: 1