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:
LADD v. TALLMAN et al.
No. 3275.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
June 13, 1932.
James M. Barrett, Jr., of Fort Wayne, Ind., and Austin V. Wood, of Wheeling, W. Va. (George R. E. Gilchrist, of Wheeling, W. Va., on the brief), for appellants.
J. M. Ritz and J. Bernard Handlan, both of Wheeling, W. Va., for appellees.
Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.
NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a final decree, entered in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling, in a suit in equity, in' which the appellants were plaintiffs below and the appellee was the defendant below.
. The suit involved the will of one Albert P. Tallman and the disposition and administration of his estate, and has already been before this court twice. Tallman v. Ladd et al., 5 F. (2d) 582, and Tallman v. Ladd et al., 41 F.(2d) 1015.
A copy of the will in question, the conditions that existed at th'e time of the filing of the suit, and the allegations of the bill will be found in the opinion of this court in Tallman v. Ladd et al., 5 F.(2d) 582. Reference to a special master was ordered by the judge below, and the special master, after a full hearing, in an able and exhaustive report, held that appellee had, in the administration of her husband’s estate, acted in the “best of faith”; had been wisely counselled and advised; and had made full, complete, and,regular settlements, both as executrix and guardian in the county court of Ohio county, W. Va., that being the court vested with sole jurisdiction to administer fiduciary accounts in West Virginia.
The judge below, after hearing on exceptions to the special master’s report, entered a decree confirming the .report, from which action this appeal was brought.
It is contended on behalf of the appellants that there were not proper findings' of fact and conclusions of law made by the court, and that the special master should have gone in detail into the settlements made by appel-lee before the county court of Ohio county.
An examination of the record shows that the court below made findings of fact and conclusions of law amply sufficient to comply with Equity Rule 70% (28 USCA § 723).
It has been repeatedly held, and we know of no decision to the contrary, -that federal courts may not fake jurisdiction in eases involving the probate of a will or eases attempting to disturb the possession of an estate properly in the hands of a state probate court or involving the conelusiveness of judgments of state courts in such matters. Kieley v. McGlynn et al., 21 Wall. 503, 22 L. Ed. 599; Stone v. Simmons, 56 W. Va. 88, 48 S. E. 841; Page v. Huddleston, 98 W. Va. 104, 126 S. E. 579; Byers v. McAuley et al., 149 U. S. 608, 13 S. Ct. 906, 37 L. Ed. 867; Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co., Executor, etc., 215 U. S. 33, 30 S. Ct. 10, 13, 54 L. Ed. 80.
As was said by Mr. Justice Day in Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co., supra: “ * * * For it is the result of the eases that, in so far as the probate administration of the estate is concerned in the payment of debts, and the settlement of the accounts by the executor or administrator, the jurisdiction of the probate court may not be interfered with. * * * ”
A discussion of this principle by this court will also be found in Cottingham v. Hall, 55 F.(2d) 664. The judge below was clearly right in holding that the settlements made by the appellee in her fiduciary capacity could not be interfered with.
It is also contended, on behalf of appellants, that the judge below was in error in decreeing certain costs against the appellants.
Questions of costs in equity are discretionary, and the court’s action is presumptively correct. Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co., 265 U. S. 78, 44 S. Ct. 481, 68 L. Ed. 909; The Scotland, 118 U. S. 507, 6 S. Ct. 1174, 30 L. Ed. 153; Kittredge v. Race et al., 92 U. S. 116, 23 L. Ed. 488; Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 40 S. Ct. 543, 64 L. Ed. 919.
Here we are of the opinion that the action of the judge in apportioning the costs was not only presumptively, but actually, correct.
The decree of the court below is therefore 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: 99