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 first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
McCORMICK SHIPPING CORPORATION, as claimant-owner of the S.S. BAHAMA STAR, Appellant, v. Maureen DUVALIER, Appellee.
No. 19980.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 23, 1963.
H. N. Boureau, Shutts, Bowen, Simmons, Prevatt & Boureau, Miami, Fla., for appellant.
Arthur Roth, Miami, Fla., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and JONES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellee, a seaman, spent several months at the home of a cousin convalescing from a maritime injury. She sued the owner of the vessel for maintenance and cure. The appellee testified that she expected to pay her cousin for the maintenance and care she had received “out of whatever money I have.” She said “I told them whatever I would get, I would just give them some of the money.” The cousin testified that the appellee had promised to give her something and she expected something.
The appellant urges that the appellee has neither paid nor obligated herself to pay for her maintenance and that the award cannot stand. We think there was an expressed intention of the appellee to make payment and an expectation of her cousin to receive it. There was no intention on the part of either the appellee or her cousin that the one should be an object of charity of the other. We think the evidence sustains the award. We think it is unnecessary to decide whether there was a legally enforceable obligation of the appellee to her cousin.
The appellee may apply to the district court for attorneys’ fees and allowable expenses both in the district court and on this appeal.
The judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 4