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 second listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".

Opinion:
In the Matter of MUNTZ TV, Inc., et al., Debtors. R. H. and M. WIENER, Appellants, v. C. Wylie ALLEN and Floyd G. Dana, The Trustees of Muntz TV, Inc., Appellees.
No. 11377.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Aug. 10, 1955.
Monroe L. Friedman, New York, N. Y., for appellant.
Joseph W. Grady, James Overton Brooks, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before FINNEGAN, LINDLEY, and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges.
FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.
Trustees-appellees, Allen and Dana of Muntz TV, Inc., principal debtor under Chapter X, Bankruptcy Act proceedings were granted an order below against appellants, Max Wiener, landlord, and Ralph H. Wiener, directing those persons to turn over $661.67. That sum represented the balance of $3,000 deposited “as security for the full and faithful performance of” a lease running from the Wieners to Muntz for premises located in Jackson Heights, New York.
Ralph H. Wiener’s communication, on his law office letterhead, to' the district judge follows:
“As illness and confinement to my home prevent my attendance in your court on November 16, 1954, to oppose a petition made by the Trustees and returnable on that date for a turnover of a leasehold security deposit allegedly held by myself and M. Wiener, I am enclosing the original of an Affidavit of Max Wiener which I wish would be marked and read as submitted in opposition to the Trustees’ said petition. A copy of the said answering Affidavit has been served by mail upon the Attorney for the Trustees.
“Thank you.”
In the affidavit, mentioned in that letter, Max Wiener requested a hearing in the Federal District Court, Southern District of New York where he resides, and the leased property is located, because of advanced age and illness of R. H. Wiener. The affiiant stated that only he and R. H. possessed personal knowledge of the matter.
Obviously on this record there is absent any question of notice to the Wieners. We think the letter and affidavit, disclosing no challenge to jurisdiction, plenary or summary, waived jurisdictional issues. Cline v. Kaplan, 1944, 323 U.S. 97, 99, 65 S.Ct. 155, 89 L.Ed. 97. Ordering the turnover of $661.77 and allowing the Wieners $2,338.23 out of the security deposit totaling $3,000 was correct. In re Cuyahoga Finance Co., 6 Cir., 1943, 136 F.2d 18. In his affidavit Max Wiener admitted the deposit was for security and the court below rightly-tested its findings of fact and conclusions of law on that point.
Because we are affirming the district court’s order entered November 16, 1954, challenged here by appellants, it is unnecessary to discuss the trustees’ motion to dismiss this appeal.
After studying this record, two briefs filed by appellants and the brief for appellees, we are satisfied that this Case presents facts readily distinguishable from those presented by In re Muntz TV, Inc. (W. G. Embry and Fort Worth National Bank v. Allen and Dana), 7 Cir., 225 F.2d 489.
We have considered all of appellants’ contentions and find them without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. 52 Stat. 883, 11 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq.

Question: This question concerns the second listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?

Choices:
local
neither local nor national
national or multi-national
not ascertained

Answer: 3