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:
W. P. ALLEN, Appellant, v. CITIZENS’ BANK & TRUST COMPANY, OF MIDDLESBORO, KENTUCKY, Appellee.
No. 3064.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
May 1, 1931.
See, also, 43 F.(2d) 549.
S. H. Sutherland, of Clintwood, Va. (S. H. & George C. Sutherland, of Clintwood, Va., on the brief), for appellant.
B. H. Sewell, of Janesville, Va., and E. M. Fulton, of Wise, Va., for appellee.
Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and COLEMAN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This was a suit oh certain promissory notes. Defendant contended that he had been released from liability thereunder by plaintiff’s acceptance under a deed of assignment which he had executed for the benefit of creditors. ' Plaintiff contended that it had not accepted under the deed of assignment, and that, if what was done be construed as an acceptance thereunder, it was not binding, because made under mistake as to the legal effect of certain instruments. The judge below ruled that plaintiff had not accepted the deed of assignment, and permitted recovery on the notes on condition that plaintiff disclaim any rights under it.
A majority of the court are of opinion that what was done by plaintiff amounted to an election to take under the deed of assignment, but that this election was made as a result of mistake, and that plaintiff, for that reason, is not bound thereby, where, upon acquiring knowledge of its rights, it withdrew its claim made under the deed of assignment. The judgment below will accordingly be affirmed.
Affirmed.

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