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:
LUCKING et al. v. SCHRAM.
No. 8661.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Jan. 9, 1941.
Wm. Alfred Lucking, of Detroit, Mich. (Lucking, Van Auken & Sprague, of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellants.
Roy G. Holmes, of Detroit, Mich. (Robert S. Marx,. Carl Runge, and Roy G. Holmes, all of Detroit, Mich., and Nichols, Wood, Marx & Ginter, of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HICKS, ALLEN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
ALLEN, Circuit Judge.
This appeal arises out of an action by the receiver of First National Bank-Detroit, an insolvent national bank, to enforce liability for an assessment levied upon the shareholders under Title 12, § 66, U.S.C., 12 U.S.C.A. § 66. Appellants counterclaimed, praying for rescission and equitable relief. The counterclaim sets forth that appellants, administrators of the estate of Alfred Lucking, through an exchange of twenty shares of stock of the Detroit & Security Trust Company, on February 7, 1930, acquired two hundred shares of stock of Detroit Bankers Company (hereinafter called the holding company), and prays that this exchange be rescinded. The District Court dismissed the counterclaim and gave judgment against appellants for their proportionate share of the assessment.
The questions arising out of the receiver’s petition are identical with those covered by the decision of this court in Barbour v. Thomas, 86 F.2d 510, a class suit, which held that stockholders of the holding company are hable for assessments made upon the stock of its constituent banks. Appellants, as stockholders of the holding company, are therefore liable for assessments on behalf of First National Bank-Detroit. Davis v. Schram, 6 Cir., 111 F.2d 144; Wolf v. Schram, 6 Cir., 111 F.2d 146; MacPherson v. Schram, 5 Cir., 112 F.2d 674, 675. It is unnecessary to discuss appellants’ liability further, as all such material questions were decided in Barbour v. Thomas and in the companion case of Ullrich v. Thomas, 6 Cir., 86 F.2d 678.
The principal questions are those arising out of the counterclaim for rescission. Appellants prayed for rescission and the return of the original stock, upon the ground that they made a mistake of law when they exchanged "the shares in Detroit & Security Trust Company for shares in the holding company. They state that they expected to receive shares in a company which would actually own the shares in the individual banks taken over by the holding company, and not until the decision of the District Court in Barbour v. Thomas, 7 F.Supp. 271, announced in 1933, were they apprised that the holders of the holding company stock were subject to the assessment for shares of the individual banks acquired by the holding company in 1929 and 1930. Clearly these allegations do not entitle appellants to succeed in their prayer for rescission. Under Michigan law, controlling here, this relief cannot be granted upon the ground of mere mistake of law. Martin v. Hamlin, 18 Mich. 354, 100 Am.Dec. 181; Lapp v. Lapp, 43 Mich. 287, 5 N.W. 317; Ingles v. Bryant, 117 Mich. 113, 75 N.W. 442; Pittsburgh etc. Iron Co. v. Lake Superior Iron Co., 118 Mich. 109, 76 N.W. 395. In the latter case both parties, in making the contract, relied upon a former decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan. This decision was later overruled by that court, and rescission of the contract was sought upon the ground of mistake of law. The court held that as the case contained no elements of misrepresentation, imposition, suppression, undue influence, imbecility, or surprise, it did not fall within any exception to the rule that in such case a mistake of law does not furnish any ground for relief.
The District Court held that appellants had not exerted due diligence in the assertion of their claimed right of rescission. With this conclusion we agree. Appellants are attorneys, who had read and considered the legal effect of the agreement for the exchange of shares of the Detroit & Security Trust Company for shares of the holding company. It provided:
“The Common stock issu'ed by said corporation [the holding company] shall be subject to the same liability as shares of the capital stock of a bank and/or trust company organized in Michigan, and/or shares of capital stock of a national bank.”
This provision of the contract was carried out by being incorporated in the articles of association, Art. IX(A), which reads as follows :
■ “The holder of each share of common stock of this corporation shall be individually and severally liable for such stockholders’ ratable and proportionate part (determined on the basis of their respective stock holdings of the total issued and outstanding stock of this corporation) for any statutory liability imposed 'upon this corporation by reason of its ownership of shares of the capital stock of any bank or trust company, and the stockholders of this company, by the acceptance of their certificates of stock in this company, severally agree, that such liability may be enforced in the same manner and to the same extent as statutory liability may now or hereafter be enforceable against stockholders of banks or trust companies under the laws under which said banks or trust companies are organized to operate. A list of the stockholders of this company shall be filed with the banking commissioner and the Comptroller of the Currency whenever requested by either of those officers.”
The clause was also printed on the reverse side of each stock certificate issued by the holding company. The assent of the stockholders to this provision was manifested by the acceptance of the stock. Barbour v. Thomas, supra, 86 F.2d at page 517; Backus v. Connolly, 268 Mich. 495, 256 N.W. 496. In 1933 appellants were aware that the receiver would enforce this liability, and one of them took an active part in the prosecution of the Ullrich Case, supra. Having received dividends of $1,600 on the holding company stock, appellants stood by for six years after the District Court’s decision in Barbour v. Thomas, supra, and failed to repudiate the contract of exchange until they filed their counterclaim in December, 1939. Now they seek equitable relief; but equity aids the vigilant, and not those who slumber on their rights. Mogk v. Stroecker, 243 Mich. 668, 220 N.W. 730; Hope v. Detroit Trust Co., 275 Mich. 213, 266 N.W. 326; Kipp v. State Highway Commissioner, 286 Mich. 202, 281 N.W. 592; Henderson v. Connolly’s Estate, 294 Mich. 1, 292 N.W. 543.
Also the situation of the parties had changed during the period of this transaction. Some three years had elapsed between the exchange of the stock and the date of the bank’s insolvency, and the rights of third parties had intervened. The stockholders, creditors, and depositors of the constituent banks of the holding company had changed their position in reliance upon the agreement. Undoubtedly the First National Bank-Detroit, carrying on active business during this time, had incurred new obligations, and under Art. IX(A) of the agreement made in the exchange of the stock, new creditors had a right to rely upon the statutory liability of the appellants for assessment upon the stock of the constituent banks. Hence the equities preponderate in favor of the receiver. Thompson v. American State Bank, 256 Mich. 245, 239 N.W. 373. Under the circumstances the delay was unreasonable. This ruling rests upon “the long-established doctrine of courts of equity that their extraordinary relief will not be accorded to one who delays the assertion of his claim for an unreasonable length of time, especially where the delay has led to a change of conditions that would render it unjust to disturb them at his instance.” Hays v. Port of Seattle, 251 U.S. 233, 239, 40 S.Ct. 125, 127, 64 L.Ed. 243.
In conclusion, we note that appellants received exactly what they bargained for, and suffered no financial damage. At the time of the exchange the total value of the stock acquired was equal to that of the stock surrendered, and up to April, 1930, the holding company stock sold at a considerable advance in market price. After all, the underlying reason for this controversy is that appellants, when sued for their proportionate share of the stock assessment, and not before, decided to repudiate the agreement. But rescission cannot be granted merely because one of the parties is disappointed in the results of a contract.
The judgment and decree are affirmed.

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

Choices:

Answer: 2