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:
CASPERS v. WATSON et al.
No. 8095.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Dec. 2, 1942.
Aiken, McCurry, Bennett & Cleary and Emmet J. Cleary, all of Chicago, 111., for appellant.
Henry E. Ayers and Horace A. Young, both of Chicago, 111., for appellee.
Before EVANS, MAJOR, and KERN-ER, Circuit Judges.
KERNER, Circuit Judge.
This is a suit in equity in the nature of a creditor’s bill, instituted by a receiver of a National Bank, seeking to discover assets in order that they might be applied to the satisfaction of a judgment against Irene M. Watson, obtained by the plaintiff on May 3, 1937, in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, upon which judgment an execution had been issued and returned by the Marshal wholly unsatisfied. Rice v. McJohn, 244 Ill. 264, 91 N.E. 448.
During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff receiver, as judgment creditor, assigned to Paul Caspers the judgment and “any and all sum and sums of money that may hereafter be had or obtained by means thereof, or any proceedings to be had thereupon.” In the assignment of the judgment, the assignor agreed to the substitution of Paul Caspers as plaintiff in the complaint instituted by the receiver. April 22, 1942, Caspers, by order of the court, was substituted as plaintiff, and thereafter, on defendants’ motion, the complaint was dismissed and a decree for costs was rendered against the plaintiff. To reverse this decree, plaintiff appeals.
The defendants contend that the District Court lost jurisdiction of the case after the-receiver assigned the judgment. The argument is that the original plaintiff was a receiver of a National Bank and filed his complaint in the proper exercise of his power in winding up the affairs of the bank, but that when he sold the judgment to a private individual who was substituted as plaintiff, both jurisdictional grounds disappeared.
The defendants rely upon the case of Weaver v. Kelly, 5 Cir., 92 F. 417, as a precedent to support their argument. A careful reading of that case discloses that it was an original bill brought by a receiver of a National Bank against Kelly and Short to quiet title to land. During the pendency of the case, Short purchased the receiver’s interest in the land and thereafter the suit was prosecuted for his benefit. The reviewing court held that the trial court should not have permitted the litigation to proceed for the exclusive benefit of the original defendants. The Weaver case is clearly distinguishable and, in the view we take of the instant case, it is not applicable because it was an original suit, and not a creditor’s suit to enforce the payment of a judgment rendered by the same court.
We think the rule is well established that the jurisdiction of a court over a particular subject matter and that court’s power to apply a remedy are coextensive; so that demands which are ancillary to the main action may be taken cognizance of by the court and determined in aid of its authority over the principal matter, and the court may entertain proceedings ancillary to its judgment, for the jurisdiction it originally acquired is not exhausted by the entry of the judgment, Pell v. McCabe, 2 Cir., 256 F. 512, 515. Consequently, our problem is to decide whether plaintiff’s complaint is an ancillary suit. If it is, obviously, the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint for want of jurisdiction.
An ancillary suit in equity is one growing out of a prior suit in the same court, dependent upon and instituted for the purpose of obtaining and enforcing the fruits of a judgment in the former suit, Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 54 S.Ct. 695, 78 L.Ed. 1230, 93 A.L.R. 195, regardless either of the citizenship of the parties or the amount in controversy. Hume v. City of New York, 2 Cir., 255 F. 488, 491. It may be maintained in the absence of a federal question, Dickey v. Turner, 6 Cir., 49 F.2d 998, and any party whose interest is affected may assert his rights by filing the bill on his own behalf, Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U.S. 276, 281, 282, 4 S.Ct. 27, 28 L.Ed. 145, irrespective of whether the court would have jurisdiction if the proceeding were an original one. The proceeding being ancillary and dependent, the jurisdiction of the court follows that of the original cause. Local Loan case, supra, page 239 of 292 U.S., page 696 of 54 S.Ct., 78 L.Ed. 1230, 93 A.L.R. 195.
We observe that there is no question as to the validity of the judgment, the service of execution and the return thereof unsatisfied, and it is clear that by the complaint, the plaintiff is seeking to satisfy his judgment out of some equitable estate of the defendant Watson. We, therefore, conclude that the suit is ancillary to the original suit and that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to proceed in accordancé with this opinion.

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