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:
OLIVER v. NORTHWESTERN MUT. LIFE INS. CO.
No. 5012.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Aug. 3, 1933.
A. E. Kountz and C. A. Fry, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Maynard Teall, P. K. Motheral, and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In this case it appears the defendant insured the lives of officers of a solvent family corporation. With the knowledge and consent of its stockholders, the premiums on these policies were paid for a number of years by the company as part compensation for the services of its insured officers. No debts of present creditors of the company existed during these transactions. Subsequently the company became insolvent, and its receiver, holding such premiums had been unlawfully paid from the assets of the company, now seeks to recover them from the insurance company. If the company had itself sued the latter, it is clear such action would not lie, and the company’s receiver has no higher rights than it.
In an able and exhaustive opinion, citing sustaining authorities, the trial judge demonstrated his warrant for giving binding instructions for the defendant. In view of the adequate discussion of the case in such opinion, we refrain from repetition, and limit ourselves to affirming the ease thereon.

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: 1