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 "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
HUNT, HELM, FERRIS & CO. v. ELBERT et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
December 8, 1925.)
No. 3320.
Patents <®=»328 — 988,561, claims I and 4, for animal stall, not infringed.
No. 988,561, claims 1 and 4, for animal stall, held not infringed.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Patent infringement suit- by Hunt, Helm, Perris & Co., against George A. Elbert and another. Prom a decree dismissing bill (296 P. 921), plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed-.
Russell Wiles, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Lewis T. Greist, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
ALSCHULER, Circuit Judge.
The appeal is from deeree finding noninfringement of claims 1 and 4 of United States patent No. 988,561, to Hunt, Helm & Perris, assignees, 1911, for an animal stall.
With the views of the District Court upon the claims in issue (296 P. 921) we are quite in accord. As to claim 1, we find that in appellees’ structure there is wholly wanting the forward and backward adjustability of the frame which holds the stanchion, an essential element of the claim. Appellees’ .alleged infringing adjustability consists in means for widening or narrowing the distances between the frames of several stalls, which in that structure can be done only at time of installation, after which the adjustment thus made remains permanent.
As to claim 4 we agree with the District Court in its holding that, if it were construed as broadly as its language alone would admit, it would be void upon thé prior art, but that, if it has validity, it is only when read in the light of the limitations of the specification, as well as the prior art, and that when so limited the claim is not infringed.
The deeree of the District Court is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 3