Task: songer_respond2_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 second 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.
We perceive no error in the action of the District Court. Before the filing of petition in bankruptcy, the appellants had filed their same wage claims in a proceeding in the state court wherein H. A. Harris had brought suit to require the alleged bankrupt, Archibald Harris Company, to turn over to him its property, on the allegation that the corporation acquired it from him by fraud. In that action a receiver had been appointed for the property of the corporation, and appellants intervened, contending that out of the property under the jurisdiction of that court their claims for wages should first be paid.
The state court has jurisdiction of the intervening petition, and in its decree finding that as against the corporation Harris was entitled to the property it distinctly reserved for further adjudication the intervening wage claims there filed by these appellants. So far as here appears, the intervening claims are still there pending for adjudication, and we are of opinion that these appellants have no proper ground of complaint of the order of the District Court directing the receiver in bankruptcy, who had acquired certain assets apparently theretofore undiscovered by the receiver of the state court, to turn over those assets, less certain expenses, to the state court receiver.
The order of the District Court is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the second 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: B