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", specifically "fiduciary, executor, or trustee". Your task is to determine which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant.

Opinion:
EARWOOD v. UNITED STATES.
No. 8248.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 2, 1937.
See, also, (C.C.A.) 76 F.(2d) 557.
Wm. T. Townsend, of Cartersville, Ga., and Thomas Howell Scott, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Thomas E. Walsh, Julius C. Martin, and Wilbur C. Pickett, Attys., Department of Justice, all of Washington, D. C., and Slaton Clemmons, Atty., Department of Justice, Lawrence S. Camp, U. S. Atty., and A. Sidney Camp, Asst. U. S. Atty., all of Atlanta, Ga., for the United States.
Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
This is a suit brought by the guardian of an insane person to recover on a policy of war risk insurance, issued to him while serving as a soldier in the armies of the United .States, on the ground that the policy matured through his becoming totally and permanently disabled because of insanity. Error is assigned to the direction of a verdict- for defendant.
The policy lapsed for nonpayment of premiums on August 31, 19.19. Demand for payment of installments under the policy was not made until February 26, 1925, more than five years after the policy lapsed. Payment was refused on April 23, 1925. Suit was not brought on the policy until July 3, 1931, nearly six years thereafter. It would serve no good purpose to extensively review the evidence. It tended to show that after his return from the army the insured was nervous and irritable, contrary to his usual demeanor before he was inducted into service. However, he had no medical treatment for his mental condition until long after the policy lapsed, and was able to pursue his previous vocation as a farmer to some extent. We agree with the District Court that appellant did not sustain the burden of proving with reasonable certainty that the insured became totally and permanently disabled so as to mature the policy before payment of premiums ceased. Lumbra v. U. S., 290 U.S. 551, 54 S.Ct. 272, 78 L.Ed. 492; U. S. v. Spaulding, 293 U.S. 498, 55 S.Ct. 273, 79 L.Ed. 617; Miller v. U. S., 294 U.S. 435, 55 S.Ct. 440, 79 L.Ed. 977.
The record presents no reversible error.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous", specifically "fiduciary, executor, or trustee". Which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant?

Choices:
trustee in bankruptcy - institution
trustee in bankruptcy - individual
executor or administrator of estate - institution
executor or administrator of estate - individual
trustees of private and charitable trusts - institution
trustee of private and charitable trust - individual
conservators, guardians and court appointed trustees for minors, mentally incompetent
other fiduciary or trustee
specific subcategory not ascertained

Answer: 6