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:
DYER et al. v. STAUFFER, Marshal.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 8, 1927.
No. 4660.
1. Creditor’s suit <@=>l — Court of equity has jurisdiction of creditors’ bill, where relief sought is of equitable character and parties are in court.
Court of equity has jurisdiction of creditors’ bill, if the relief sought is of an equitable character and parties against whom it is sought are in court.
2. Courts <§=>40 — Action of court of equity in proceeding with creditors’ bill without necessary parties or lacking prescribed conditions is not void.
If court of equity proceeds to hear creditors’ bill without necessary parties or lacking prescribed conditions, its action is erroneous, but not void.
3. Courts <§=>! — “Jurisdiction” means power to entertain suit, consider merits, and render binding decision, and “merits” means the various elements entering into or qualifying plaintiff’s right.
“Jurisdiction” means power to entertain suit, consider merits, and render binding decision, and “merits” means the various elements which enter into or qualify plaintiff’s right to relief sought.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio; D. C. West-enhaver, Judge.
Suit by Elmer C. Dyer and others against George A. Stauffer, as Marshal, etc. Decree of dismissal, and complainants appeal.
Affirmed.
Herbert W. Nauts, of Washington, D. C., (U. G. Denman, of Toledo, Ohio, on the brief), for appellants.
D. L. Sears, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Toledo, Ohio (A. E. Bernsteen, U. S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.”
Before DENISON and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and GORE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The United States brought an equity suit in the court below against the stockholders of a defunct corporation, alleging that taxes were due from it, that the defendants had received its assets on distribution, and that they should restore enough to pay these taxes. There were due personal service and, upon default, a decree as prayed. When an execution was levied, the defendants in that suit filed this bill against the United States marshal to enjoin collection. Their claim is that the first decree was invalid, because the bill therein did not show a judgment at law against the corporation, and because the corporation was not made a party defendant. The court below dismissed this present bill. It was in effect, though not so named, a bill of review. The errors alleged being apparent on the face of the record, there can be no relief at this time, unless there had been such a lack of jurisdiction as to make the decree void, and upon such lack of jurisdiction appellant relies.
It is often said that a court of equity has no jurisdiction of a creditors’ bill, if there was no judgment at law, or if an indispensable party is not on the record. This is not an accurate use of the term. If the relief sought is of an equitable character, and the parties against whom it is sought are in court, it is clear that a court of equity has jurisdiction. Upon objection duly made, sometimes without objection, it should decline to proceed without necessary parties or lacking prescribed conditions; but, if it does proceed, its action is erroneous, not void. The distinctions between lack of jurisdiction and lack of a good case have been pointed out repeatedly, most recently in General Investment Co. v. New York Central; 271 U. S. 228, 230, 46 S. Ct. 496, 70 L. Ed. 920.
The decree is affirmed.

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