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.

Opinion:
EARLE RESTAURANT, Inc. v. O’MEARA.
No. 9335.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.
Argued Nov. 20, 1946.
Decided Feb. 24, 1947.
CLARK, Associate Justice, dissenting.
Mr. J. Harry Welch, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. H. Mason Welch and John R. Daily, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. John H. Burnett, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Arthur F. Carroll, Jr., of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and CLARK and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justices.
PRETTYMAN, Associate Justice.
Appellee O’Meara was a musician in an orchestra in the Neptune Room of the Earle Restaurant.. She was injured there and brought a civil action against the Restaurant for negligence. The Restaurant answered that she was its employee and, therefore, limited to her claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The case went to trial before a jury, and a verdict for Miss O’Meara was returned. From judgment on that verdict the Restaurant appeals.
Appellant’s first point relates to the exclusion from evidence of an alleged contract. Upon the trial,‘the Restaurant proffered a document purporting to be a contract o-f employment between it and Miss O’Meara. The court at first admitted the document over objection, but later granted a motion to strike it, upon the ground that the testimony did not show that Miss O’Meara knew anything about the contract except the fact that there was one. Then, upon authority of Williams v. United States, the court held that as a matter of law Miss O’Meara was an employee of the orchestra leader and not of the Restaurant.
The document in question was a printed form with blanks filled in. It purported to be a contract of employment between the Neptune Room, as employer, and Four Musicians “represented by the undersigned representative.” It was signed “By Consolidated Radio Artists, Inc. (Representatives of Employees) By Charles E. Green.” It recited that “the employees severally, through their representative, agree to render collectively to the employer services * * etc. It also recited that musicians performing under the contract must be members of the American Federation of Musicians, and all rules, laws and regulations of that Federation were made part of the agreement. The contract designated the leader of the orchestra as one of the Four Musicians, but imposed certain duties upon him “on behalf of the employer”, and provided for his signature as “Orchestra Leader”.
It was testified that Consolidated Radio Artists negotiated the contract; that it was “represented by the Musician’s Union”; that the form was one used by the American Federation of Musicians, and that this was the contract entered into by the Earle Restaurant for these musicians. Miss O’Meara explained that union rules provide for some sort of a written agreement, in triplicate, one copy for the union, one for the leader, and one for the “place you are playing in.” She said that the band, contract would have to be a union contract, that she had previously worked under this form of contract, but that she had not seen or signed this document. Her name, with those of the other musicians, was listed on the back of the contract, and the wages due each were listed.
On the facts thus shown, the document in question appears to be a contract of employment negotiated and executed by or for a union representing employees. Any contract is binding if executed by a duly-authorized agent, even if the principal did not see or sign it or know anything further about it. This contract appears to be one reached by a collective-bargaining process. To be sure, it is not an ordinary collective-bargaining contract, as that term is used currently to refer to labor union negotiations of general terms of employment, since this contract includes the terms of an actual engagement. But it purports to have been negotiated by a designated representative of a group of employees, and that is the distinguishing characteristic of collective bargaining. We know of no rule which prevents collective bargaining of actual individual employment, or any rule which makes invalid a contract thus negotiated and executed by a duly-authorized bargaining representative. There is no requirement that such a contract be seen or signed by each individual employee. If agreed to and signed by his or her duly-authorized collective-bargaining representative, it is a binding agreement of employment. Thus the document in the case at bar was admissible upon the facts shown. Of course, if it were shown that it is not what it purports to be, or is otherwise invalid or unauthorized, the answer might be to the contrary.
The contract involved in Williams v. United States, supra, differed from what the contract appears to be in the case at bar. There the Music Corporation appeared in the contract as “representing Griff Williams and His Orchestra”, called an “attraction” and referred to throughout the contract as an entity; the musicians were not severally named; they did not purportedly “severally agree.” It was specifically found by the court that the Music Corporation was a booking agency under agreement with Williams to act as the agent for him and the orchestra of which he was the leader; and that the amount paid by the establishment at which the attraction appeared, was a lump sum from which Williams was entitled to secure a profit after paying his musicians. Those and other facts of similar import led the Circuit Court of Appeals to hold that Williams was an employer. The difference between the facts in that case and those in the case before us is too obvious to require elaboration.
Similarly, in Spillson v. Smith, the orchestra was engaged as a unit, the contract was between the leader and the restaurant, and the sum paid was a lump sum. The contracts in Aberdeen Aerie No. 24, Etc. v. United States, Los Angeles Athletic Club v. United States, and Biltgen v. Reynolds were similar to those in the Williams and Spillson cases, supra. In Birmingham v. Bartels, however, the contract was similar to the one we have here, and the court reached a conclusion opposite to. those in the other cases mentioned and held the restaurant to be the employer. It is important in the present case to note that in every case mentioned the court considered the contract itself an important factor in the consideration. In the case before us, the question is whether the contract should have been admitted. In the view which we take, we do not attempt to weigh all the factors to determine whether the Restaurant was or was not Miss O’Meara’s employer. Our decision is that the contract was admi * ble.
If the contract is as it appears to be on the facts adduced, and as we have characterized it, the puzzling and confused features of the case appearing in the record become at once clear. Such, for example, are the leader’s status in the matter, the reference in the contract to the union rules, laws and regulations, the plaintiff’s testimony as to the leader’s activities, and the fact that she knew there was a contract but had never seen it. We think that the trial court was in error in granting the motion to strike the contract and thus denying it as evidence.
The judgment will be reversed with a direction to grant a new trial. We do not order a dismissal, because, while the contract may dispose of the case, the case was not tried upon the theory of a collective-bargaining contract, and, therefore, there may be evidence, not presented, which might indicate that the document is not what it appears to be or is unauthorized or otherwise invalid.
The trial court also declined to admit entries in the ledger of the Earle Restaurant, proffered by it “for the purpose of showing the relationship which existed between the parties which is in issue in this suit.” Appellant asserts error in that ruling. On the question posed by the proffer we agree with the trial court. These records, properly authenticated, were admissible under the Federal Shop Book Rule to prove specific acts, transactions, occurrences or events ; for example, in the present case, certain payments claimed to have been made by the Restaurant. But they are not admissible for the stated purpose of proving a relationship. For that purpose they are merely self-serving declarations. Whether, having proved certain acts by the books, counsel could argue that those acts prove a relationship, is a different matter. The difference may seem technical, but the Federal Shop Book Rule is specific.
We find no error in the other respects in which appellant asserts error. The instruction as to the inference of negligence is perhaps inartistic as it appears on the-printed record. In effect, however, the court said that the evidence was sufficient to justify an inference of negligence if the jury believed the evidence and determined that the inference was warranted; it specifically said that no presumption of negligence whatever arose from the mere happening of the accident.
Reversed with instructions to grant a new trial.
Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424, - 33 U. S.C.A. § 901 et seq., made applicable to the District of Columbia by the Act of May 17, ,1928, 45 Stat. 6OO, D.C.Code (1940) § 36 — 501.
7 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d 129; the facts are more fully stated in the lower court’s opinion reported in D.C.N.D.Ill., 1941, 38 F.Supp. 536.
“Neptune Room”, being the name of a restaurant operated by appellant, was treated throughout the case as a trade name of appellant.
Aside from the fact that Consolidated Radio Artists, Inc., negotiated the contract and executed it as representative of the employees, the record does not show this concern’s place or authority in the matter. Apparently it was acting directly for the Musician’s Union.
A principal is presumed to know what his agent is doing and may be bound even by his misrepresentations. Bowen v. Mount Vernon Sav. Bank, 1939, 70 App. D.C. 273, 275, 276, 105 F.2d 796, 798, 799; Peyser v. Volsk, 1941, 74 App.D. C. 1, 119 F.2d 462 ; 2 Mechem, Agency (2d Ed.1914) §§ 1709, 1720.
It was pointed out in J. I. Case Co. v. Labor Board, 1944, 321 U.S. 332, 64 S.Ct. 576, 88 L.Ed. 762, that a collective-bargaining agreement does not usually go so far as to include actual terms of employment, and additional individual contracts of actual employment are usually necessary.
7 Cir., 1945, 147 F.2d 727.
D.C.WJD.Wash., 1943, 50 F.Supp. 734.
D.C.S.D.Cal., 1944, 54 F.Supp. 702.
D.C.Minn., 1943, 58 F.Supp. 909.
8 Cir., 1946, 157 F.2d 295.
The Federal Shop Book Rule, 28 U. S.C.A. § 695, spéeifically provides that the records, etc., of any act, transaction, said act, transaction, occurrence, or etc., shall be admissible “as evidence of event * * (Emphasis ours.)

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.

Choices:

Answer: 1