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 "fiduciaries". 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:
PHILLIPS v. UNITED STATES.
No. 8651.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Oct 17, 1945.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Nov. 26, 1945.
Norman M. Littell, J. Edward Williams, Vernon L. Wilkinson, Roger P. Marquis, and Ralph S. Boyd, Department of Justice, all of Washington, D. C., and J. Albert Woll and Clarence W. Beatty, Jr., both of Chicago, 111., for appellant.
Thomas C. Donovan and Charles E. Loy, both of Chicago, 111. (Samuel K. Markman and John P. Sullivan, both of Chicago, 111., of counsel), for appellee;
Before SPARKS, MAJOR, and KER-NER, Circuit Judges.
KERNER, Circuit Judge.
This appeal involves an action brought under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41 (20), to recover the value of plaintiffs alleged oral lease of certain farm lands. The court tried the case without a jury, found the issues against the defendant, assessed the damages at $1,000 and entered judgment thereon, from which defendant appealed.
It appears that Michael and Maria Riley owned a farm in Will County, Illinois, and that on May 28, 1941, for the purpose of condemning the farm for military purposes, the United States Government filed a petition in which the Rileys were named defendants. A jury found the just compensation for the land and judgment was entered on the verdict. The judgment was satisfied by the payment of $26,000 into the registry of the court. After the $26,000 was deposited the Rileys petitioned the court for distribution of the funds. In their petition they asserted that there were no liens against the property; that they were the sole owners of the land; and that they were entitled to receive all of the money deposited. The court ordered payment of the $26,000 to the Rileys.
On December 23, 1942, five months after the $26,000 had been paid to the Rileys, plaintiff filed his complaint in this case, alleging that by an oral agreement with the Rileys he had leased the land; that the lease commenced March 1, 1941, and ran for one year; that defendant commenced an eminent domain proceeding to condemn the land — to which Phillips was not made a party defendant — and filed the declaration of taking; and that he was dispossessed and prevented from farming the land. Defendant pleaded the condemnation proceedings and judgment in bar.
At the trial plaintiff testified that he had leased the land by an oral agreement from March 1, 1941, to February 28, 1942; that by the agreement Riley was to bear half of the costs of seed and other similar items in return for half of the crops produced; that he had not lived upon the land nor had he farmed the land in 1941, but that in the fall of 1940 he had plowed 50 acres for corn and had spread 25 or 30 loads of fertilizer.
It also appears that in the course of the condemnation proceedings defendant had had the title to the land examined and an inspection made of the land to ascertain the names of all persons in possession in order that such parties, if any, could be made defendants and that the inspection disclosed that the only persons in possession of the land were the Rileys, the record owners of the land. The record further discloses that in the condemnation proceeding plaintiff testified as a witness for the Rileys and that before the award had been disbursed he had been advised to intervene in the proceedings and assert any claim he might have in the land or in the fund deposited.
Section 2 of the Eminent Domain Act, Ill.Rev.St.1943, c. 47, provides that a petition filed under the Act shall set forth “a description of the property, the names of all persons interested therein as owners or otherwise, as appearing of record * *
Defendant complied with and proceeded according to the provisions of the Act, but plaintiff contends that he had a lien on the lands and was a necessary party to the condemnation proceedings, and that since he was not a party defendant, the condemnation proceedings, as to him, were a nullity.
Concededly, as a general rule, one who has an interest in property about to be condemned and who is not made a party defendant is not affected by the proceeding and loses no rights thereby, but that rule is not applicable here, since the plaintiff did not have such possession of the lands as would give notice of any rights he might have had in the property, nor did the title record in the recorder’s office reveal that plaintiff had any interest whatever in the lands in question.
The only interest of the United States in the condemnation proceedings was the payment into court of the value of the whole property, United States v. Dunnington, 146 U.S. 338, 13 S.Ct. 79, 36 L.Ed. 996; United States v. 150.29 Acres of Land in Milwaukee County, 7 Cir. 135 F.2d 878; Meadows v. United States, 4 Cir., 144 F.2d 751, and the award stands in place of the property taken and includes all interests in the property, Yellow Cab Co. v. Howard, 243 Ill.App. 263, 276, and in procedural matters it is enough if conformance is according to the law of the state in which the property condemned is located, 40 U.S.C.A. § 258.
In our case there is no claim, nor has the plaintiff proved that defendant had actual knowledge of plaintiff’s alleged lease, neither did the evidence disclose notice of such facts as would put a prudent man on inquiry; in fact, plaintiff did not have such possession of the property as would give notice of any rights he might have in the property, Roderick v. McMeekin, 204 Ill. 625, 68 N.E. 473, and Cessna v. Hulce, 322 Ill. 589, 153 N.E. 679. An inspection of the premises disclosed that the only persons occupying and in possession of the land were the Rileys. Under this state of the record the United States, in the condemnation proceedings, having conformed to Illinois law, was discharged of further liability when it paid into the registry of the court the value of the lands, United States v. Dunnington, supra, and Hooper v. Finlay, 331 Ill. 132, 162 N.E. 202.
The judgment of the District Court will be reversed and the case remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint. It is so ordered.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1