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:
WEXLER v. JANNEY et al.
No. 5988.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Nov. 10, 1949.
Decided Nov. 11, 1949.
Christopher T. Boland, Washington, D. C. (Richard J. Connor and Gallagher, Osherrnan, Connor & Butler, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
Harrison L. Winter, Assistant Attorney-General of Maryland (Hall Hammond, Attorney General of Maryland, on the brief), for appellees.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a suit against Stuart S. Janney and others, constituting the Maryland Racing Commission, asking that certain orders of the Commission be set aside. The orders involved are those referred to in the opinion of this Court in Wexler v. Maryland State Fair et al., 4 Cir., 164 F.2d 477. The suit was properly dismissed. If the orders are absolutely void, as argued by appellant, they can be collaterally attacked in t'he suit against Maryland State Fair, and the present suit against the Racing Commission for injunctive or other relief is entirely unnecessary. If the orders are not void and action on tlhe part of the Commission is necessary to set them aside, the suit must fail as one against the state forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution.
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