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.

EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.
Appellant is an incompetent’s committee. Carl E. and Andrew F. Travis, the members of a predecessor committee, embezzled the proceeds of checks drawn, by appellee and payable to their order. The checks were the proceeds of a loan, that the predecessor committee had been, authorized by a court order to negotiate, on the security of the incompetent’s reai estate. Although the order of authorization contained the words “Upon consideration of the petition of Carl E. Travis and Andrew F. Travis, committee of Lloyd A. Travis”, it “Ordered and Decreed, that Carl E. Travis and Andrew F. Travis be and they hereby are authorized to borrow * * Ap-pellee drew the checks in accordance with this authorization, i. e. made them payable to the order of “Carl E. Travis and Andrew F. Travis”, without adding the word “committee” or otherwise indicating their fiduciary capacity. Appellant brought the present suit against appellee on the theory that this was negligence. The District Court found that appellee was not negligent and was protected by the Uniform Fiduciaries Act.
The fact that appellee drew the checks in accordance with a court order supports the finding that appellee was not negligent. Moreover the absence of the word “committee” from the checks did not cause the embezzlement, since the presence of the word would not have prevented the Travises either from cashing the checks or from embezzling the proceeds. Appellant contends that the omission of the word is all that precludes him from recovering against the indorsees who cashed the checks for the Travises and that, therefore, the omission caused the loss even if it did not cause the embezzlement. This contention is erroneous. The Uniform Fiduciaries Act, as in force in the District of Columbia, provides broadly and without limitation that “A person who in good faith pays or transfers to a fiduciary any money or other property which the fiduciary as such is authorized to receive, is not responsible for the proper application thereof by the fiduciary * * * ” D.C.Code 1951, § 28-2302, 45 Stat. 510. Cf. National Casualty Co. v. Caswell & Co., 317 Ill.App. 66, 45 N.E.2d 698. The Act also provides that “If any negotiable instrument payable or indorsed to a fiduciary as such is indorsed by the fiduciary * * the indorsee is not bound to inquire whether the fiduciary is committing a breach of his obligation as fiduciary in indorsing or delivering the instrument, and is not chargeable with notice that the fiduciary is committing a breach of his obligation as fiduciary unless he takes the instrument with actual knowledge of such breach or with knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the instrument amounts to bad faith. * * *” D.C.Code 1951, § 28-2304, 45 Stat. 510; cf. § 28-2307. There is no evidence that either indorsee had such knowledge.
Affirmed.
. In view of the Uniform Fiduciaries Act discussed below, it is by no means clear that appellee’s omission of the word “committee” would have been negligent even if there had been no court order, We need not decide this question.

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