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)", specifically "transportation". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
J. S. GISSEL & COMPANY, as claimant of the TUG SAN PEDRO and the BARGES GISSEL 2001 and GISSEL 1302, Appellant, v. SIR WILLIAM REARDON SMITH & SONS, LTD., as owner of the MOTOR VESSEL BRADFORD CITY, Appellee. SIR WILLIAM REARDON SMITH & SONS, LTD., as owner of the Motor Vessel Bradford City, Appellant, v. J. S. GISSEL & COMPANY, as claimant of the tug San Pedro and the barges Gissel 2001 and Gissel 1302, Appellee.
No. 20528.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
March 3, 1964.
Rehearing Denied April 3, 1964.
Edward W. Watson, Eastham, Watson, Dale & Forney, Galveston, Tex., for appellant-appellee.
Harold R. DeMoss, Jr., Bracewell, Reynolds & Patterson, Houston, Tex., for Signal Oil & Gas Co.
Bryan F. Williams, Jr., Royston, Rayzor & Cook, Galveston, Tex., for Sir William Reardon Smith & Sons, Ltd.
Before HUTCHESON and BELL, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment in admiralty in a collision case on the Houston Ship Channel.
The district judge filed full findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered judgment accordingly.
As is usual in cases of this kind, the appellant makes a great outcry against the findings. We are, however, convinced that this is much ado about nothing and that the decree should be affirmed on the ground that the findings are not shown to be clearly erroneous.
Affirmed.
. Smith & Sons Ltd., v. Tug San Pedro, D.C., 226 F.Supp. 879.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "transportation". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?

Choices:
railroad
boat, shipping
shipping freight, UPS, flying tigers
airline
truck, armored cars
other
unclear

Answer: 1