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 classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".

Opinion:
In re NATIONAL BROWNE CO., Inc.
No. 75.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 1, 1945.
Jacob J. Schulder, of New York City (Gerson C. Young and Jacob J. Schulder, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Louis P. Rosenberg, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellee.
Before L. HAND, CHASE, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
[1] Under the law of the State of New York, a chattel mortgage which is not accompanied by an immediate delivery of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee is void as against creditors of the mortgagor, unless the mortgage or a true copy is filed pursuant to the Lien Law, Consol.Laws, c.33, § 230.
Section 232 of the Lien Law (as the section stood on August 26, 1944) reads as follows: “If the chattels mortgaged are in the city of New York at the time of the execution of the mortgage, the mortgage or a true copy thereof must be filed in the county where the mortgagor alleges to reside at the time of the execution of the mortgage, and in the county where the property is situated.”
The filing on August 26 did not sufficiently comply with this requirement. The statute requires that the copy must be filed in two places, i. e., (1) the county where the mortgagor “alleges to reside,” and (2) where the property is situated. Petition of Turchin, 260 App.Div. 447, 23 N.Y.S.2d 144. There is no merit in appellant’s contention that the statute is satisfied if the mortgage is filed in the county where the mortgagor alleges the property to be. Appellants rely on cases dealing with the alleged residence of the mortgagor, which are not in point here. We see no reason to read “and” as “or.” Strict compliance with the statute is required to create the lien. In re Parkway Knitting Mills, Inc., 2 Cir., 119 F.2d 605; Ely v. Carnley, 19 N.Y. 496. The appellant has not shown such compliance, and consequently the appeal must fail.
Affirmed.
The amendment to § 232, effective September 1, 1944, which reads “and also in the county where the property is situated” makes no material change pertinent here.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?

Choices:
local
neither local nor national
national or multi-national
not ascertained

Answer: 3