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 "fiduciaries". 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:
Harry W. NICHOALDS, Jr., Compass Corporation and Trilon Oil Company, Inc., Appellants, v. Charles E. McGLOTHLIN, Appellee.
No. 7315.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
April 20, 1964.
George J. Francis, Denver, Colo., for appellants.
Robert D. Means (of Holland & Means), Denver, Colo. (Robert E. Holland, Stanley H. Johnson and H. A. Nikkel, Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS and SETH, Circuit Judges, and KERR, District Judge.
KERR, District Judge.
Appellee instituted this diversity action in the United States District Court for Colorado against Harry W. Nichoalds, Jr., Compass Corporation and Trilon Oil Company, Inc., seeking judgment in the amount of $13,600.00.
The complaint was in three counts. The first count avers that misrepresentations were made by Nichoalds to induce appellee to enter into an agreement for the purchase and sale of stock, and that on February 2, 1961, McGlothlin elected to rescind the transaction, tendered his stock in Compass Corporation to Nichoalds and asked for the return of his money. The second and third counts, made in the alternative, are also grounded in misrepresentation. McGlothlin alleges that subsequent to his giving notice of rescission, defendants proceeded to sell all the assets in the Compass Corporation in which McGlothlin had purchased shares of stock, and that this transfer was done without giving notice to MeGlothlin and without complying with corporate laws, all in furtherance of a conspiracy to deprive McGlothlin of, his equity in the Compass Corporation. The third count demands an accounting and other equitable relief.
The following salient facts are established by the evidence: Compass Corporation owned the ranch properties involved in this dispute. All of the shares of stock of Compass were owned by Nichoalds, who was its principal officer. In addition to Compass Corporation, Nichoalds was the principal officer and in control of Trilon Oil Company, Inc., owning 15,000 of the 25,000 outstanding shares of Trilon stock. Nichoalds conducted his business operations by this three-cornered arrangement, using Trilon to finance Compass. Loans were made by Trilon to Compass for operating expenses of the ranch. The corporate activities were actions of Nichoalds, who had the full and complete control of both corporations.
At one time McGlothlin was employed by the United States Forest Service. Having had experience in ranching, though little business experience, Mc-Glothlin wished to invest his savings in ranch property. He met Nichoalds through a Billings, Montana, realtor, with whom Nichoalds had listed for sale the ranch property located near Lame Deer, Montana. The list price was $89,-000.00. At the time of the proposed sale, title to the ranch was in the name of Compass Corporation. Following preliminary negotiations McGlothlin examined the ranch property, the cattle, and the equipment, and then consulted Nichoalds regarding the ranch holdings. Nichoalds stated that he valued the entire property at $140,000.00 or $145,000.00. He represented that the liabilities against the ranch consisted of $36,666.00 owed to the seller of the ranch; $2,000.00 payment due on 440 acres of additional lands acquired after the purchase of the ranch; and $1,000.00 balance due on recently acquired bulls. He further represented that there was adequate money to pay all expenses.
McGlothlin offered $15,000.00 which Nichoalds accepted and a contract for sale was' executed December 20, 1960. Under the terms of the agreement 2,310 shares of Compass Corporation stock, valued at $6.50 per share, were issued to McGlothlin for the $15,000 agreed upon but not yet paid. The balance of 5,690 shares of Compass stock were placed in escrow to assure McGlothlin that 50% of the shares would become his property. Nichoalds retained 8,000 shares in accordance with the intention that each party would eventually own 50 % of the Compass Corporation.
Following these negotiations and the execution of the contract McGlothlin learned from Nichoalds that there was an additional loan of $27,000.00 due a bank in Hardin, Montana, which Nichoalds had not previously disclosed. Mc-Glothlin learned that even when the parties were negotiating for the sale of the property Nichoalds was dealing with the Farm Home Association for a loan to pay off the $27,000.00 obligation. McGlothlin protested to Nichoalds regarding this undisclosed indebtedness and Nichoalds thereupon re-evaluated the stock from $6.50 to $4.85 per share.
On December 30, 1960, McGlothlin delivered his first check to Nichoalds in the amount of $12,000.00 and took over as manager of the ranch at a salary of $250.00 per month, plus housing allowance. Immediately thereafter McGlothlin learned that a herd of cattle, purchased by Nichoalds in Nebraska, had been branded with the ranch brand and were pledged to the bank at Hardin, Montana, as security for the $27,000.00 loan. McGlothlin testified that he had been led to believe that the cattle were owned by the Compass Corporation. The evidence revealed, however, that the cattle had been acquired by Nichoalds in his own name. Shortly after McGlothlin took over the management of the ranch numerous bills arrived, among which were a lumber bill for $900.00, a bill for $1,-000.00 due on bulls, and $3,300.00 due on ranch equipment.
In January 1961 McGlothlin learned for the first time that Compass Corporation had no cash and that operating expenses had to be paid from the funds of the Trilon Company. Contrary to Nichoalds’ previous representations that there was adequate money to operate the ranch, he finally admitted on February 2, 1961, that there was not enough money to operate the ranch and that further stock would have to be issued. McGlothlin then told Nichoalds that he wished to rescind the agreement for the purchase and sale of stock, and that he wanted his money returned to him. On February 12, 1961, Nichoalds and McGlothlin met in Sheridan, Wyoming, and prepared a written Memorandum Agreement for McGlothlin’s withdrawal from the ranch and corporate operations, Nichoalds agreeing to return the $13,600.00 on or before November 15, 1961. Nichoalds took the agreement to consult with his own lawyer, but never returned it to McGlothlin and did not sign it. On February 13, 1961, McGlothlin’s attorney notified Nichoalds of his rescission of the agreement, offered to return the stock, and demanded return of the purchase price. At the time the Memorandum was drawn up, McGlothlin agreed to leave the ranch one week after March 9, 1961. He fulfilled his part of the agreement though he did not hear from Nichoalds until the following May.
The crux of the decision is whether the misrepresentations were such as to justify rescission. There is little doubt that Nichoalds failed to fully and fairly disclose a number of important material facts. There was no disclosure of the $27,000.00 obligation, nor of the debts which McGlothlin discovered after making the initial payment. After McGlothlin discovered the true conditions he gave notice of his election to rescind. Rescission is, of course, a proper remedy where, as here, the contract has been induced by misrepresentation and fraud. In Brown v. Alkire, 295 F.2d 411, at page 414, 10 Cir., the court stated:
“* * * Generally, fraud consists of some deceitful practice or willful device resorted to for the purpose of inducing another, in reliance upon it, to surrender property or legal rights. 37 C.J.S. Fraud § 1 (1943); 23 Am. Jur. Fraud and Deceit § 2 (1939); Black’s Law Dictionary 788, (4th Ed. 1951). It connotes perjury, falsification, concealment and misrepresentation. Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 66 S.Ct. 1304, 90 L.Ed. 1500.”
To the same effect, in Junius Const. Co. v. Cohen, 257 N.Y. 393, 178 N.E. 672, at page 674, Judge Cardozo, Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals, said:
“ -* * * ipjjg se]jer was not at liberty in good conscience to list among the incumbrances the two unopened streets, which, even if opened, would leave the value unimpaired, and, while listing these, suppress the existence of a third unopened street, which, if opened, would destroy the value for the use intended by the buyer. No one can say with reason that the plaintiff would have signed this contract if informed of the likelihood that its factory, when built, would be bisected by a street, to say nothing of the possibility that a permit to build would be denied altogether. Misrepresentation, if there was any, as to a risk so vital was something that went to the very essence of the bargain. We do not say that the seller was under a duty to mention the projected streets at all. That question is not here. What we say is merely this, that having undertaken or professed to mention them, he could not fairly stop halfway, listing those that were unimportant and keeping silent as to the other. The enumeration of two streets, described as unopened but projected, was a tacit representation that the land to be conveyed was subject to no others, and certainly subject to no others materially affecting the value of the purchase. The result is the same whether the silence of the seller as to the presence of a bisecting street was innocent or deceitful. Misrepresentation, even though innocent, sustains the rescission of the contract * *
We think the evidence and legal principles support only one conclusion, namely, that Nichoalds concealed from McGlothlin material facts which equity and good conscience required him to disclose fully and honestly. Nichoalds entered into and closed the transaction without revealing knowledge of certain facts while partially disclosing other facts. McGlothlin acted without full knowledge of all the facts, to his damage. This constitutes fraud under Colorado law. See Morrison v. Goodspeed, et al., 100 Colo. 470, 68 P.2d 458.
There is another reason for concluding that a judgment of rescission was correctly entered. Nichoalds discharged McGlothlin as ranch manager. Naturally, when McGlothlin departed from the ranch he expected the return of the purchase price which he paid for stock in the Compass Corporation. Nichoalds treated the contract as rescinded as he Immediately transferred the ranch property out of Compass Corporation into the El Sol Corporation, another corporation controlled by Nichoalds. From the day McGlothlin was discharged as manager of the ranch, Nichoalds treated the property as his own. He is now precluded from denying that the contract was rescinded, and McGlothlin is entitled to the return of the money he paid to defendants.
There is substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial court.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0