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 "miscellaneous", specifically "fiduciary, executor, or trustee". Your task is to determine which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant.

Opinion:
FIELD’S ESTATE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 202.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
July 13, 1944.
Writ of Certiorari Granted Dec. 4, 1944.
See 65 S.Ct. 267.
Edgar J. Bernheimer, of New York City (Sydney J. Schwartz, of New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.
Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Sewall Key, Helen R. Carloss, and Robert Koerner, all of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
In Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 111, 60 S.Ct. 444, 84 L.Ed. 604, 125 A.L.R. 1368, the Court said that “the measure of the tax is the value of the transferred property at the time when death brings it into enjoyment” Precisely what that means has been a matter of much comment. We do not agree with the Tax Court that Smith v. Shaughnessy, 318 U.S. 176, 63 S.Ct. 545, 87 L.Ed. 690, which dealt with a gift tax, aids decision here. Whatever we might now hold if this were for us a novel question, we need not consider, for the matter is governed in this circuit by our decisions in Commissioner v. Flanders, 2 Cir., 111 F.2d 117 and Bankers Trust Co. v. Higgins, 2 Cir., 136 F.2d 477. Accordingly we hold that the value of the transfer at decedent’s death consisted of the value of the trust property minus the value of the life estates of his two nieces. The resulting taxable value here is $24,930.76. We reverse with directions to the Tax Court to fix the tax on that value.
Reversed and remanded.
See Paul, Federal Estate and Gift Taxation, Sec. 7.25.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous", specifically "fiduciary, executor, or trustee". Which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant?

Choices:
trustee in bankruptcy - institution
trustee in bankruptcy - individual
executor or administrator of estate - institution
executor or administrator of estate - individual
trustees of private and charitable trusts - institution
trustee of private and charitable trust - individual
conservators, guardians and court appointed trustees for minors, mentally incompetent
other fiduciary or trustee
specific subcategory not ascertained

Answer: 2