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:
In re SMITH. MILLER v. EHRLICH.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
December 2, 1929.
No. 171.
George M. Glassgold, of New York City (Arthur Miller, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Abraham J. Halprin, of New York City (Irving Barry, of Brooklyn. N. Y., of counsel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.
The bankrupt, Isaac Smith, was the sole stockholder of the Israh Building Corporation. At the time the petition in bankruptcy was filed, the corporation owned certain real property in New York City, which was sold shortly after Smith’s bankruptcy. The net proceeds of sale, amounting to $1,676.07, were turned over to the trustee in bankruptcy upon the theory that these moneys were general assets of the insolvent estate, because the bankrupt was the equitable owner of all the property of the corporation. Prior to the bankruptcy the claimant, Miller, drew plans for a building to be erected on the property belonging to the corporation and filed them 'with the building department of the city of New York. These plans were rejected, whereupon he drew another set of plans, which were filed thereafter. The plans were ordered by Smith, who was at the time the president of the corporation. Miller filed the usual architect’s affidavit with the building department, in which he made application on “behalf of Isaac Smith, owner, *. * * for the approval of such * * * plans.” This affidavit was accompanied by an application signed by Smith himself, in which he swore that he was the owner of the premises on which the building was to be erected. Miller testified that he was informed by Smith that the latter was the president of the corporation and that the corporation owned the property.
After the bankruptcy occurred, Miller filed no proof of claim against the bankrupt estate and took no steps to obtain his pay (except by filing a mechanic’s lien just before the sale of the land) until about a year afterwards, when he sued the corporation in the Municipal Court and obtained a judgment by default for $1,135 for his alleged services to the latter. Execution was issued to a city marshal and returned unsatisfied. Thereupon Miller petitioned the bankruptcy court for payment of this judgment to the marshal out of the proceeds of sale of corporate property in the hands of the trustee.
The referee held that Miller’s claim, against the corporation was an afterthought that he contracted solely with Smith, and never looked to the corporation until he found the former was insolvent and could not pay him. He accordingly dismissed the claim, and the District Judge affirmed the order of the referee.
It is manifest that the court below proceeded upon a wrong theory. It could not question the validity of the judgment obtained by Miller against the Israh Building Corporation. If the trustee wished to avoid the effeet of that judgment, he doubtless might as sole stockholder set machinery in motion to require the corporation to apply to the state court to open its default, and thus attempt to defeat Miller’s claim. He took no such step, but relied on testimony which he thought indicated that Miller contracted only with Isaac Smith as an individual. As long as the judgment stood, it conclusively established Miller’s claim against the corporation, and all evidence that he did not contract with it was incompetent. In re Howard (C. C. A.) 135 F. 721.
Thus we have a ease where corporate funds were turned over to the trustee in bankruptcy as sole owner of the corporate stock, though the indebtedness of the corporation to Miller was outstanding and unsatisfied. Such a transfer, even though made to a trustee, who did not know of Miller’s claim, was, under familiar principles, void against creditors of the corporation. It is manifest that the proceeds of corporate property cannot”be treated as assets of the bankrupt estate to the prejudice of Miller. It makes no difference whether a corpora^ tion having no creditors might distribute its property to its sole stockholder. At least to the extent of Miller’s judgment the property under consideration here was subject to the payment of his claim. Consequently the trustee cannot distribute the proceeds of the Israh Building Corporation among the creditors of the bankrupt estate, or use them for general expenses, except so far as they may exceed the amount of corporate creditors. This being so, the question remains as to the proper disposition of the funds in the hands of the trustee in bankruptcy.
Under section 679 of the Civil Practice Act of the state of New York an execution creditor subjects the goods and chattels of his judgment debtor to levy by virtue of the execution from the time of its delivery to the proper officer to be executed. Home Bank v. Brewster & Co., 15 App. Div. 338, 44 N. Y. S. 54. , But such an inchoate lien is only imposed upon tangibles, and not upon ehoses in action. McNeeley v. Welz, 166 N. Y. 124, 59 N. E. 697. Accordingly the mere issuance of the execution imposed no lien on behalf of Miller upon the moneys standing to the credit of the trustee in bankruptcy. Some further suit or proceeding in aid of the execution was necessary under the New York statutes to reach and apply these assets.
Section 792 of the New York Civil Practice Act empowers the judge of the state court, who has granted an order for examination in supplementary proceedings, to make an order upon such notice as he deems best, or, without notice, “permitting” the person indebted to the judgment debtor to pay to a sheriff designated in the order a sum on account of the alleged indebtedness not exceeding the sum which will satisfy the execution. An order for examination in supplementary proceedings was apparently made by the state court after the return of Miller’s execution unsatisfied. The further steps to be taken would not seem to be difficult in such a situation.
While it is necessary for the bankruptcy court, as well as the state court, to authorize the payment before it can be actually made under section 792, supra, yet if the state court order is obtained, and the execution is thus extended to the proceeds of sale of the corporate real estate, except for the bar caused by the possession of the fund by the bankruptcy court, that bar should be at once removed. The transfer of corporate funds from the corporation to the trustee in bankruptcy, which confessedly was without consideration, may properly be treated as constituting a debt from the trustee to the judgment debtor corporation, so as to subject it to levy under section 792 with the consent of the bankruptcy court.
Another less simple method of reaching the proceeds in the hands of the trustee would be through a receiver of the corporation appointed in an action in the state court for a sequestration of its property brought under section 100 et seq. of the General Corporation Law of New York (Consol. Laws, c. 23). This way would seem to be unnecessarily cumbersome, unless there are creditors of the corporation other than Miller who ought to share in its assets.
If it is shown to the District Court that there are no creditors of the corporation, other than Miller, perhaps a simpler procedure would be an order of the District Court, made on the consent of the trustee and the corporation, for the payment by the trustee to the city marshal of the amount of Miller’s judgment.
The trustee in bankruptcy should be directed to hold the proceeds of sale of the corporate real estate which are' in his hands pending a further application by Miller, or by a receiver of the Israh Building Corporation in sequestration, for distribution of the same. The time within which such application shall be made should be fixed by the United States District Court in bankruptcy.
Accordingly the petition of Miller is dismissed, without prejudice to a further application by Miller, or a receiver in sequestration, to reach and apply the proceeds of sale of the Israh Building Corporation which are in the hands of the trustee.
The order, as modified in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion, is 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