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:
ADELMAN v. CENTAUR CORPORATION.
No. 9716.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 20, 1944.
M. M. Wexler, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Wexler & Weisman, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Charles E. Nadler, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.
Joseph E. Rapkin, of Milwaukee, Wis. (Miller, Mack & Fairchild, of Milwaukee, Wis., Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and H. J. Crawford, all of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HICKS, ALLEN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.
Appellant appeals from a judgment decreeing the appellee owner of a chose in action acquired before bankruptcy by assignment from the bankrupt, Swift Equipment Corporation, which corporation, on September 9, 1938, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 207, and was subsequently adjudged a bankrupt. The facts leading up to this controversy are as follows:
The Centaiir Corporation has its place of business at Greenwich, Ohio, and is engaged, among other things, in the manufacture of highway mowers. On February 14, 1938, the Centaur appointed the Equipment Corporation its distributor in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, reserving authority to determine the price and the terms on which its products were to be sold.
Swift Corporation was low bidder under a contract to furnish the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania eleven highway mowers at $993.00 each, for which Centaur refused to extend credit to Swift.
Pursuant to a written agreement, on August 10, 1938, Swift directed the Department of Property and Supplies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to make checks payable to it for said mowers and mail said checks to Centaur at Greenwich, Ohio, expressly stating that these directions were irrevocable. The Commonwealth approved this arrangement.
Swift, acting through its Board of Directors, executed and delivered to Centaur a power of attorney, authorizing Centaur to receive, indorse and deposit to its credit the checks of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
After Swift was adjudicated a bankrupt, the Commonwealth paid for the mowers according to the understanding of the parties, except that one check in the amount of $933.00 was sent directly to the bankrupt, cashed by it and the sum realized credited on Swift’s books to Centaur as commissions earned and paid.
Appellant invokes Section 70 of the Bankrupt Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 110, in his effort to recover the money received by Centaur. Appellee claims title by force of a power of attorney and assignment.
The test to be applied under Section 70 of the Bankruptcy Act as to what property passes to a trustee in bankruptcy is whether, at the date of the filing of the petition the property could have been (1) transferred by the bankrupt or (2) levied upon and sold under judicial process against him or otherwise seized, impounded or sequestered. It is clear from the language of the Act that property or property rights of the bankrupt which at the date of bankruptcy are not in any manner transferable by him or leviable at law or subject to sequestration in a proceeding against the bankrupt do not pass to the trustee. The effectiveness of a transfer or an assignment as against the trustee, is to be tested by the standards of applicable state law. Corn Exchange Nat.
Bank & Trust Co. v. Klauder, 318 U.S. 434, 437, 63 S.Ct. 679, 87 L.Ed. 884, 144 A.L.R. 1189.
The rights of the parties are to be determined by the law of Pennsylvania where the alleged assignment was made and the contract and payments therunder were to be performed. There is no issue in the case as to whether there was a preferential transfer by the bankrupt or that the assignment was made to defraud creditors. The sole issue is whether the alleged assignment was effective to transfer title before bankruptcy intervened. ' The rule prevails in Pennsylvania that where a fund has been set apart for the payment of an obligation or a fund in the hands of a third person has been so designated as to require the latter to make payment out of it to a creditor, the person for whose benefit the fund was so set apart or designated acquires a right to have it applied as directed, which right will be given a preference over the rights of other creditors in case of the debtor’s insolvency unless there is an element of fraud present or superior equities enter into the transaction. Specifically referring to assignment of accounts receivable, the only requirement of the state law is that the assignee shall give notice to the debtor whose obligation has been acquired. In re Phillips’ Estate, 205 Pa. 515, 55 A. 213, 66 L.R.A. 760, 97 Am.St.Rep. 746.
On July 31, 1941, the Pennsylvania law was amended, Pennsylvania Laws 1941, No. 255, p. 606, 69 Purd. Stat. Ann. § 561, to provide that notice of assignment concurrently entered on the assignor’s books is notice to the debtor. The facts in the case show that the assignee gave notice to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of the transaction it had had with the bankrupt and the facts also substantially show that the assignor made appropriate entries on its records of the transaction. As we view the facts, the steps taken by appellee to perfect its title were sufficient to protect it against creditors of the bankrupt or against bona fide purchasers from the debt- or.
It is established law in Pennsylvania, and by the weight of authority elsewhere, that money due and to become due, under an existing contract is subject to assignment, the assignment attaching to each installment as it becomes due and payable to the assignor. City of Philadelphia v. Lockhardt, 73 Pa. 211; East Lewisburg Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Marsh, 91 Pa. 96; Ruple v. Bindley, 91 Pa. 299.
This is an equitable action and is controlled by equitable principles. An equitable assignment requires no particular form and may be oral. The requisites are an intention on one side to assign and an intention on the other to accept, supported by sufficient consideration and disclosing a present purpose to make an appropriation of a debt or fund. Since intent is the controlling factor, it is to be ascertained from the language used construed in the light of the surrounding circumstances and the relationship of the parties.
In the present case, Centaur was unwilling to accept the Swift Corporation as a credit risk. It was willing to furnish the equipment to Swift that it might comply with its contract with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania provided Centaur did not become an unsecured creditor of Swift, which company evidently desired to give Centaur protection to the extent of the cost of the equipment that might be needed to complete its contract.
The power of attorney from Swift to Centaur, Swift’s letter to the Commonwealth, the approval of the arrangement by the Commonwealth, the simultaneous delivery of the machinery was a single transaction, and must be viewed as a whole. In law, it was an unqualified assignment in good faith and for a valuable consideration of the whole interest of the assignor in a chose in action, and the assignor’s control over it immediately ceased after the assignment and notice to the debtor. Watson v. Bagaley, 12 Pa. 164, 51 Am.Dec. 595; Keys’ Estate, 137 Pa. 565, 20 A. 710, 21 Am.St.Rep. 896.
The case of DuBois v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 341 Pa. 85, 18 A.2d 802, is not contrary. Similarity to the case at bar is found in the cited case in that it was the transfer of the right to a debt by a power of attorney to collect money and pay it over to another person or to creditors of the assignor. Its dissimilarities are that the contract out of which the fund was realized, by its express terms prohibited its assignment or an assignment of money due, or to become due, under it, unless the opposite contracting party consented in writing, and further, the action was based on Section 60, sub. a of the Bankruptcy Act, Title 11 U.S.C.A. § 96. The Court found that there was no assignment, but stated that had there been an equitable assignment, it would have operated as a preference and therefore would have been void. The cited case is inapplicable to the one at bar. Judgment 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: 0