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:
Elliott FREDERICK, Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Wilmer Sales Co., a Corporation, Bankrupt, Plaintiff in Error, v. MOTORS MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
March 2, 1925.)
No. 3250.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania; W. H. Seward Thomson, Judge.
See, also, 1 F.(2d) 437.
M. J. Hosack and Redden & Weddell, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff in error.
Wilbur F. Galbraith, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant in error.
Before BUF-FINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This action was brought here by writ of error of Elliot Frederick, trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of the Wilmer Sales Company, to review the action of the trial judge in giving binding instructions for the defendant, Motors Mortgage Corporation. The business transactions among the parties connected directly or indirectly are all clearly set forth in the lucid opinion of the learned trial judge in overruling a motion for a new trial. We entirely agree with his reasoning and conclusions, and accordingly affirm the judgment on his opinion. 1 F.(2d) 438.

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: 0