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 "private business and its executives". 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:
CENTURY FURNITURE CO. v. BERNHARD’S, INC.
No. 7782.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 19, 1936.
Wm. H. Penaat and Edward F. Penaat, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Joseph E. Bien and Werner Olds, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.
HANEY, Circuit Judge.
In an action to recover a judgment for goods sold and delivered by appellant to appellee, wherein the latter denied, among other things, a promise to pay for said goods, judgment was rendered for appellant for a small sum, from which judgment this appeal was taken.
The facts as disclosed by the evidence show that appellant’s salesman had written authority “to offer and sell” appellant’s goods. With respect to terms of sales, it was provided: “Any special terms or arrangements are to be referred to us [appellant] for approval.”
Appellee had no knowledge of the salesman’s authority with respect to terms, and when ordering the goods a written statement, signed by the salesman, was attached to the order, providing in effect, as explained by the witnesses, that the goods were delivered on consignment. This special agreement- was unknown to appellant until after the goods were delivered, the salesman having detached the special agreement from the order when he forwarded it to the factory.
Subsequently, the goods not being sold, appellee delivered the goods to a third person at the request of the salesman, denied liability, hence this action, which was tried to the court, a jury having been waived by the parties.
At the trial appellant did not move for judgment, request .special findings, nor except to the findings as filed. Under such circumstances, we cannot consider the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings, because such question was not raised either by motion or by request for special findings. First Nat. Bank of San Rafael v. Philippine Refining Corporation (C.C.A.9) 51 F.(2d) 218, and cases therein cited.
The various questions of law attempted to be raised cannot be considered by us because such legal propositions were not properly raised in the trial court. “To obtain a review by an appellate court of the conclusions of law a party must either obtain from the trial court special findings which raise the legal propositions, or present the propositions of law to the court and obtain a ruling on them.” Fleischmann Const. Co. v. United States, 270 U.S. 349, 356, 46 S.Ct. 284, 288, 70 L.Ed. 624.
The pleadings support the findings, and the findings support the judgmeut.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1