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". Your task is to determine which of the following categories best describes the litigant.

Opinion:
Katharine M. DRIER et al., Appellants, v. John W. SNYDER, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Appellees.
No. 9902.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued April 15, 1949.
Decided June 13, 1949.
Mr. J. Roy Thompson, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellant Drier. Messrs. Bernard J. Gallagher and M. Walton Hendry, Washington, D. G, entered appearances and were on the brief for appellant Drier.
Mr. Harold G. Aron, Washington, D. G, with whom Mr. Richard L. Merrick, Washington, D. G, was on the brief, for appellants Standard Commercial Tobacco Company and Standard Steamship Corporation.
Mr. Samuel K. Abrams, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington D. C, with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, and John D. Lane, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D. G, were on the brief for appellees. Messrs. Oliver Dibble and Sidney S. Sachs, Washington, D. G, also entered appearrances for appellees.
Before CLARK and PROCTOR, JJ., and ARTHUR F. LEDERLE, District Judge, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
This court has closely examined the .available record and finds no1 error in it to justify reversal. The judgment of the .trial court is therefore affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first 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