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:
PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. NELSON. In re CHICKAMAUGA TRUST CO.
No. 7920.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 9, 1939.
Burnet Sizer, of Chattanooga, Tenn. (Sizer, Chambliss & Kefauver and J. B. Sizer, all of Chattanooga, Tenn., on the brief), for appellant.
Chas. S. Coffey, of Chattanooga, Tenn. (Chas. S. Coffey and Coffey, McCoy & Durand, all of Chattanooga, Tenn., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HICKS, ALLEN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court denying a petition to review the order of the court’s Referee in Bankruptcy.
The Chickamauga Trust Company, a Tennessee corporation, was adjudged á bankrupt on December 31, 1930. For many years prior to this adjudication it was an entrepreneur with The Prudential Insurance Company of America for procuring and making loans on real estate. So much of the contract between the parties as is material to a decision is as follows:
“Paragraph 2 provides that the correspondent shall submit applications for loans subject to the following conditions:
“‘(a) The Insurance Company shall be the sole judge as to such applications as it may, in its absolute discretion, elect to approve.
“ ‘ (b) The Insurance Company shall be the sole judge as to such papers and documents, legal or otherwise, as it may require to be furnished; (1) when a loan application is submitted for approval and (2) as a condition precedent to disbursement. In each and every case, however, the Correspondent shall furnish to the Insurance Company an accurate statement of the cost of the loan to the borrower by way of commissions presently payable and/or commissions payable on a deferred basis.
“‘(c) The Insurance Company. shall be the sole judge as to who shall furnish, examine and/or sign the documents mentioned, in sub-paragraph (b) preceding and shall be the sole judge as to whether or not such documents are satisfactory in form, execution and contents, and as to the legal sufficiency of the title to the security.’ ”
The Trust Company submitted to the Insurance Company for its approval, applications for loans and when approved, it procured and forwarded notes and mortgages payable to the Insurance Company signed'and acknowledged by the borrower and at the same time an abstract of title.
In some cases the Trust Company advanced out of its own funds, less its expenses and commissions, the sum due the borrower and furnished to the Insurance Company satisfactory evidence of its payment. In others, it forwarded the loan contracts and supporting papers to the Insurance Company, together with a statement of its expenses and commissions. In the first type of cases, the Insurance Company remitted to the Trust Company; in the second, to the Trust Company or a designated depository which made disbursements to the borrower and the Trust Company for its commissions and expenses.
Under the first type of loan the binding contracts were on forms prepared by the Trust Company; in the others, on those of the Insurance Company.
The Trust Company collected for the Insurance Company both principal and interest on the loans, which were deposited to its account in the Hamilton National Bank or the First National Bank of Chattanooga, Tennessee. It mailed to the Insurance Company daily reports showing the amount of the collections and under its agreement was to also remit daily.
At the date of bankruptcy, the Trust Company was indebted to the Insurance Company in the sum of $115,000 for collections made, but not remitted.
Prior to bankruptcy and during the calendar year 1930, the Trust Company had submitted to the Insurance Company on forms provided by the latter, nine applications for loans aggregating $10,663.40, which had been approved by the Insurance Company and the Trust Company notified. Subsequently the Trust Company had the borrowers execute notes and mortgages payable to the Insurance Company for the respective' amounts and it paid to them out of its funds the face thereof, less its charges and commissions and charged against the respective borrowers the amounts of the loans.
At the time of bankruptcy the Insurance Company had approved only the applications for these loans and the Trust Company listed them as assets in its schedule filed in the bankruptcy proceedings. Between March 3 and April 1, 1931, the appellee, F. A. Nelson, Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Chickamauga Trust Company, forwarded by registered mail to the appellant, The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Newark, N. J., the completed papers covering the loans.
In all letters of transmittal the trustee advised the Insurance Company that the respective loan “having been completed according to the application and the terms and rules and regulations of The Prudential Insurance Company” he was inclosing the papers consummating the loan. He concluded his letter by requesting the Insurance Company to send him a check as soon as possible covering the amount due the Chickamauga Trust Company for the. sums paid out by it on this account. The Insurance Company retained the notes and mortgages and advised the trustee that it was giving credit of $11,613.07 on the indebtedness of the Chickamauga Trust Company to it at date of bankruptcy.
Shortly thereafter the trustee filed his petition before the Referee in Bankruptcy praying that an order be entered in the proceedings directing the Insurance Company to pay to him the sum withheld by it. The Insurance Company answered and the matter was submitted to the Referee on a stipulation ol facts and he ordered the Insurance Company to pay said sum to the trustee. On petition to review, the lower court sustained the Referee, hence this appeal.
The validity of the challenged decree depends upon the right of set-off in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Act, § 68a, 11 U.S.C.A. § 108(a), declares: “In all cases of mutual debts or mutual credits between the estate of a bankrupt and a creditor the accounts shall be stated and one debt shall be set off against the other, and the balance only shall be allowed or paid.”
The words “debts” and “credits” as used in the Act are correlative. What is a debt on one side is a credit on the other. McCollum, Trustee v. Hamilton National Bank, 303 U.S. 245, 249, 58 S.Ct. 568, 82 L.Ed. 819.
The object of the Statute is to permit a statement of the account between the bankrupt and its creditors with a view to the application of the doctrine of set-off between mutual debts and credits. The provision of the Statute docs not enlarge the doctrine of set-off and can be applied only where the general principles of set-off are present. The court applies it under the general principles of equity. Cumberland Glass Mfg. Company v. De Witt, 237 U.S. 447, 457, 35 S.Ct. 636, 59 L.Ed. 1042.
The principle upon which the rule proceeds is that in case of mutual debts, it is only the balance which is the real and just sum owing by or to the bankrupt. When the trustee was vested with title to the assets of the bankrupt, they were subject only to set-off of claims presently due the bankrupt. The rights of the parties being adjusted in equity as of the date of bankruptcy, all the trustee took as assets and all that he was required to pay was the balance subsequently accruing on the contract between the Trust Company and the Insurance Company. The fact that the debt owing to the bankrupt was not due at the date of his adjudication is immaterial.
If the Insurance Company’s debt to the trustee did not accrue until after bankruptcy, then equity does not permit the set-off because as the debt of the Insurance Company did not exist when the estate of the bankrupt passed into the hands of the trustee, the equities of the bankrupt’s other creditors intervene to prevent the depletion of the assets in the hands of the trustee by extinguishing a good debt due the estate by a bad one due a creditor from the estate.
In all cases oí mutual debts, where the insolvency of one of the debtors and the rights of the other creditors in the assigned estate are involved, equity intervenes and modifies the legal right of set-off in order to promote equality and justice. Compare Scott v. Armstrong, 146 U.S. 499, 513, 13 S.Ct. 148, 36 L.Ed. 1059; Western Powder Mfg. Company v. Brewerton Coal Company, 7 Cir., 81 F.2d 85; Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. Elliott, 4 Cir., 80 F.2d 158; Hood v. Brownlee, 4 Cir., 62 F.2d 675.
The correct interpretation of the contract between the Trust Company and the Insurance Company determines the rights of the parties on this appeal. If the Insurance Company could have been compelled under the contract at the date of bankruptcy to accept the notes subsequently tendered it by the trustee, it is entitled to set-off. Conversely, if it had an option to accept or decline, it is without the right.
In construing contracts, recourse must first be had to the language of the instrument. A true construction of the words or phrases used is the touchstone of legal right. They are to be interpreted according to their strict and primary acceptation unless from the context of the instrument and the intention of the parties to be collected from it they appear to be used in a different sense, the cardinal rule always being to give effect to the intention of the parties in the light of the surrounding circumstances. It is clear from the contract here in question that the Insurance Company retained the absolute unqualified right in its own discretion to accept or reject any application for a loan tendered it by the Trust Company, and its discretion did not end when it accepted the application. It was thereafter to be the sole judge of the sufficiency of the papers and documents, legal or otherwise, and as to the legal sufficiency of the title as security to support the loan. To be “sole judge” means to come to a conclusion or reach an opinion alone, uncontrolled by others. It is certain from this that at the date of bankruptcy, the Insurance Company had not accepted or approved the sufficiency of the title of the security or the documents supporting the loan, therefore, the trustee had no legal right to compel the Insurance Company to accept the notes and it is not entitled to set-off.
It is a fair presumption from the record in this case that the purpose of the Insurance Company in accepting the notes tendered it by the trustee conditioned on it remitting cash was to use their purchase price as an offset.
Under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, § 68b, 11 U.S.C.A. § 108(b), a set-off or counterclaim shall not be allowed in favor of any debtor of the bankrupt which was purchased by or transferred to him after the filing of the petition or within four months before such filing with a view to such use and with knowledge or notice that such bankrupt was insolvent or had committed an act of bankruptcy.
On the whole case, we are of the opinion the lower court was correct in denying the appellant relief and 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: 1