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 "miscellaneous", specifically "fiduciary, executor, or trustee". Your task is to determine which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant.

Opinion:
George R. DESMOND, Trustee, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Marilyn J. MOFFIE, Defendant, Appellee.
No. 6839.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
April 13, 1967.
George R. Desmond, Framingham, Mass., for appellant.
Leonard M. Salter, Boston, Mass., for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, Mc-ENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
McENTEE, Circuit Judge.
In this action plaintiff trustee in bankruptcy seeks to set aside as fraudulent a conveyance of certain Massachusetts real estate made by the bankrupt to his wife in January 1962. The suit, which was commenced on August 22, 1966, is based on Section 70(e) of the Bankruptcy Act. Under this section a trustee in bankruptcy stands in the shoes of a creditor who has a provable claim and may set aside any transfer of property by the bankrupt which is fraudulent or voidable under applicable state law.
Plaintiff alleged facts which would render the conveyance in question voidable under the Massachusetts Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Law. Mass.Gen. Laws ch. 109A (1932). Defendant countered with a motion for summary judgment on the ground that this is an action sounding in tort and therefore is barred by the two year statute of limitations applicable to suits on tort claims. Mass. Ann.Laws ch. 260, § 2A (1952). The district court granted defendant’s motion.
On appeal, plaintiff contends that his suit is not barred because it is founded on contract and hence is governed by the six year limitation applicable to contract actions. Mass.Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2 (1932). This is the only issue raised by this appeal.
In Massachusetts the statutes of limitation applicable to law actions based on contract and tort are also applicable to suits in equity. Kagan v. Levenson, 334 Mass. 100, 134 N.E.2d 415, 62 A.L.R.2d 704 (1956). In deciding which statute applies in a given ease, it is necessary to determine the essential nature of plaintiff’s claim. Kagan v. Levenson, supra. In Blumenthal v. Blumenthal, 303 Mass. 275, 21 N.E.2d 244 (1939), the court held that the essential basis of the statutory proceeding to set aside a fraudulent conveyance is an indebtedness that could ordinarily be enforced in an action of contract, and that the nature of the claim is in no way changed by the form of procedure. Accord, State of Rio De Janeiro v. E. H. Rollins & Sons, 299 N.Y. 363, 87 N.E.2d 299, 14 A.L.R.2d 594 (1949); see Salvucci v. Sheehan, 349 Mass. 659, 212 N.E.2d 243 (1965) ; cf. Viera v. Menino, 322 Mass. 165, 76 N.E.2d 177, 179 (1947). Accordingly, since this claim is based on contract rather than tort, it follows that the two year statute of limitations is not applicable here and plaintiff’s suit is not barred.
Judgment will be entered vacating the judgment of the district court and remanding the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
. The petition in bankruptcy was filed on June 6, 1966 and plaintiff was appointed trustee on June 29, 1966.
. 11 U.S.C. § 110(e) (1).

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous", specifically "fiduciary, executor, or trustee". Which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant?

Choices:
trustee in bankruptcy - institution
trustee in bankruptcy - individual
executor or administrator of estate - institution
executor or administrator of estate - individual
trustees of private and charitable trusts - institution
trustee of private and charitable trust - individual
conservators, guardians and court appointed trustees for minors, mentally incompetent
other fiduciary or trustee
specific subcategory not ascertained

Answer: 1