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 second 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:
Fred B. COLLIER et al., Petitioners, v. Honorable Arthur F. LEDERLE, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Respondent.
No. 13460.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 13, 1958.
Fred B. Collier, Royal Oak, Mich., for petitioners.
No appearance for respondent.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioners seek in this Court a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent, Honorable Arthur F. Lederle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, to set aside orders entered in an action seeking an accounting and damages from the petitioners, which was originally filed in the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland, Michigan, and later removed to the U. S. District Court. Before removal the petitioners had filed a cross-bill against the Federal Housing Administration, on whose motion the action was thereafter removed. In the District Court the cross-bill was dismissed as to the Federal Housing Administration for defect in the pleading. Rule 8(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.
With the cross-bill against the Federal Housing Administrator eliminated from the case which, in the opinion of the District Judge, was the only pleading which gave the District Court jurisdiction, the District Judge entered an order remanding the case to the state court.
The present petition for a Writ of Mandamus asks that the respondent be directed to set aside the orders dismissing the cross-bill and remanding the action, contending principally that the petitioners should have been afforded an opportunity to amend their cross-bill before the Court ordered it dismissed.
The Court is of the opinion that the order remanding the action is not reviewable and that a Writ of Mandamus can not be used to circumvent that rule or as a substitute for an appeal. Sect. 1447(c) and (d), Title 28 U.S.Code; Kloeb v. Armour & Co., 311 U.S. 199, 61 S.Ct. 213, 85 L.Ed. 124; Stein’s Stores v. Taylor, 6 Cir., 216 F.2d 439; Massey-Harris-Ferguson, Ltd. v. Boyd, 6 Cir., 242 F.2d 800, certiorari denied, 355 U.S. 806, 78 S.Ct. 48, 2 L.Ed.2d 50.
It Is Ordered that the application for the Writ of Mandamus be and is denied.

Question: This question concerns the second 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