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". Your task is to determine which of the following categories best describes the litigant.

Opinion:
E. C. NEWSOM and Beatrice D. Newsom, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 15131.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 24, 1955.
William R. Frazier, James P. Hill, Jacksonville, Fla., Hill & Frazier, Jacksonville, Fla., for petitioners.
Robert B. Ross, Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel A. Taylor, Ch. Counsel, Rollin H. Transue, Sp. Atty., Washington, D. C., Int. Rev. Serv., for respondent.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RIVES and TUTTLE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The decision is affirmed on the opinion of the Tax Court, 22 T.C. 225, followed in Davis v. Dudley, D.C.W.D.Pa., 124 F.Supp. 426, 429, by District Judge Marsh, one of the judges who had joined in deciding United States v. Erie Forge Co., 3 Cir., 191 F.2d 627, thought by the petitioner to be in conflict with the decision of the Tax Court.
Affirmed.
. See also United States v. Koppers Co. (Premier Oil Refining Co. v. United States), 1955, 348 U.S. -, 75 S.Ct. 268; Stephan v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 197 F.2d 712; Middleton v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 200 F.2d 94; Maxwell v. Campbell, 5 Cir., 205 F.2d 461; Eck v. Commissioner, 16 T.C. 511, affirmed per curiam, 2 Cir., 202 F.2d 750; Bouche v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 144, on appeal now to 2 Cir.; Smith v. Commissioner, 20 T.C. 663.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous". Which of the following categories best describes the litigant?

Choices:
fiduciary, executor, or trustee
other
nature of the litigant not ascertained

Answer: 1