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:
ALBERT WEINBRENNER, Inc., et al. v. FINNE.
No. 9042.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 30, 1939.
-Layton & Boyrie and N. Ray Alber, all of Portland, Or., for appellants.
Geo. P. Winslow, of Tillamook, Or., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, MATHEWS, and HEADY, Circuit Judges.
DENMAN, Circuit Judge.
This is an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding in which the district court dismissed the petition of certain creditors upon the motion of the alleged bankrupt for a non-suit. Petitioners appealed as in equity, the record complying with the provisions of the Equity Rules, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723. The alleged bankrupt demanded a jury trial, the jury was impanelled, the trial begun, and, upon the evidence adduced by the petitioners, the alleged bankrupt moved for an order of nonsuit and dismissal of the petition. The motion was granted and the judgment of dismissal w-as entered July 29, 1938, prior to the effective date of the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.
The appellee contends that his demand for the jury and the commencement of the trial before it was a sufficient submission to the jury of the questions invqlved to constitute a trial by the jury; hence, appellee claims the record made pursuant to the Equity Rules brings nothing before us because a jury trial in a bankruptcy case is a trial at common law requiring a bill of exceptions on appeal. Elliott v. Toeppner, 187 U.S. 327, 335, 23 S.Ct. 133, 47 L.Ed. 200.
Appellants contend that their case was never submitted to the jury and that appellee’s invocation of the jury was waived by his motion for a nonsuit, taking the case from the jury’s decision. We are offered no federal decisions disposing of this question, but we believe the law is correctly stated by the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon in the case of Patty v. Salem Flouring Mills Co., 53 Or. 350, 361, 364, 96 P. 1106, 98 P. 521, 522, 100 P. 298, where the court held:
“The reason for this rule is that, by moving for a nonsuit after the plaintiff has introduced his evidence and rested, the defendant waives his right to a jury trial, on the ground that the proof is insufficient to make a case adequate to be submitted to the jury.
* * *
“The right of a defendant to a jury trial in civil cases must be maintained inviolate, but, when that party waives that right by requesting the trial court to grant a judgment of nonsuit, on the ground that the evidence of the adverse party is insufficient to authorize the cause to be referred to the triers of fact, such express renunciation ought to be obligatory upon the party making it until he changes the position thus voluntarily assumed, either by introducing evidence after the motion for the non-suit is denied, or by requesting the court to submit the cause to the jury.”
Cf. Marine National Bank v. Swigart, 6 Cir., 262 F. 854, 855; Hawes v. Hansen, 9 Cir., 83 F.2d 526, 528. We hold that a bill of exceptions was not requisite on this appeal.
One of the contested issues was whether there had been an act of bankruptcy under Section 3a(4) of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, as amended prior to Act of June 22, 1938, (Chandler Act) 44 Stat. 662, 11 USC (1934 ed.) § 21(a) (4), 11 U.S.C.A. § 21(a) (4) set forth in the footnote. The court found there was none and declined to consider the issue of insolvency. Evidence both for and against the petitioners’ contention of insolvency at the time of an attachment was admitted, and further evidence was offered and denied admission, the court stating that his decision that there was no act of bankruptcy made unnecessary its consideration. There was sufficient evidence to warrant a finding of such insolvency.
Concerning the claimed act of bankruptcy, the attachment was one suffered by the appellee on a writ issued in an action in the circuit court of the State of Oregon and levied on his personal property, which was not vacated or discharged within 30 days from the date the attachment was obtained. The court below held that the attachment was not such as that required for an act of bankruptcy, because the case, in which the writ was issued, proceeded to a trial and verdict in favor of the appellee some two and one-half months' after the attachment was obtained.
We cannot agree, that because on the merits of the case there is a judgment for the attached party, there has not been an attachment otherwise validly issued and levied, nor that a favorable judgment on the merits more than two months after the attachment was obtained is equivalent to a vacation or discharge of the attachment within the 30 days required by the statute.
Appellee contends that this court should uphold the judgment of the court below on the ground that the record shows the attachment was invalid because not issued and returned in compliance with the Oregon law. The claimed invalidity is that the writ was issued before the summons was placed in the hands of the sheriff, White v. Johnson, 27 Or. 282, 297, 40 P. 511, 50 Am. St.Rep. 726; Macleay Estate Co. v. Churchill, 132 Or. 63, 66, 284 P. 286; Willamette Collection & Credit Service v. Henry, 138 Or. 460, 462, 7 P.2d 261, and that after the levy had been made and the property of the appellee taken into the sheriff’s possession, the sheriff did not ■ make his return until 84 days after his levy, by which time the case had been decided on its merits.
With respect to the time of the issuance of the summons and writ, it appears that both were issued on the same day. In this situation we apply the presumption that the officials’ duties were properly performed and that the summons was actually placed in the hands of the sheriff at the time or before the writ of attachment was issued. Section 9.-807 (15), Oregon Code 1930; McMaster v. Ruby, 80 Or. 476, 483-485, 157 P. 782.
Section 4-406, Oregon Code 1930, provides with respect to the attachment of personal property such as was made under the attachment here involved, “2. Personal property capable of manual delivery to the sheriff, and not in the possession óf a third person, shall be attached by taking it into his custody”. (Emphasis supplied.) This taking of the personal property into the sheriff’s custody seems to be made the full execution of the writ by the terms of. the Oregon law, for in another section 4-419-Oregon Code 1930, it is provided that “When the writ of attachment shall be fully executed or discharged, the sheriff shall return the same, with his proceedings indorsed thereon, to the clerk of the court where the action was commenced.” (Emphasis supplied).
No Oregon case is cited to us holding that a writ of attachment is not fully executed if the sheriff delays for as long as 84 days to make a return of the writ. We assume that the statute requires a prompt filing of the return as part of the prescribed duties of the sheriff stated in Section 4-419, and in the case of Gerdes v. Sears, 13 Or. 358, 361, 10 P. 631, it was held that the sheriff might be liable to .one injured for not making such' a prompt return. We do not coinsider that case as deciding that, so far as the writ of attachment itself is concerned, it was not fully executed when the' personal property was taken into the sheriff’s possession. In that case, 13 Or. at page 361, 10 P. 631, the difference between execution of the writ of attachment and its return is drawn.
We hold that a valid attachment was obtained which satisfied the requirement of the Bankruptcy Act with regard to the act of bankruptcy here involved, though the sheriff long delayed the return. Cf. Ritter v. Scannell, 11 Cal. 238, 249, 70 Am.Dec. 775; Hogue v. Corbit, 156 Ill. 540, 546, 41 N.E. 219, 47 Am.St.Rep. 232.
The alleged bankrupt also tendered the issue that the claims of the three original petitioners did not aggregate the $500 required by the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 95(b). The district court made no finding in this regard. The question whether the claims of the original petitioning creditors exceeded $500 is immaterial in view of the fact that the record shows that prior to the trial of the cause an additional claimant intervened and the total of the claims of the intervening creditor and the original petitioners exceeded $500. That is sufficient to establish this-necessary element of jurisdiction. Canute Steamship Company, Ltd., v. Pittsburgh & West Va. Coal Co., 263 U.S. 244, 249, 44 S.Ct. 67, 68 L.Ed. 287.
The case must therefore be reversed for further proceedings pursuant to the views above stated.
Reversed.
“Acts of bankruptcy by a person shall consist of his having * * * (4) suffered, or permitted, while insolvent, any creditor to obtain through legal proceedings any levy, attachment, judgment, or other lien, and not having vacated or discharged the same within thirty days from the date of such levy, attachment, judgment, or other lien was obtained.” (Emphasis supplied.)

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: 99