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 "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
DOEHLER DIE CASTING COMPANY et al., Complainant, v. GEARHART KNITTING MACHINE COMPANY, Respondent (COUNTY NATIONAL BANK, Intervener and Appellant).
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
December 14, 1925.)
No. 3415.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States i'or the Western District of Pennsylvania; Robert M. Gibson, Judge.
Appeal of the County National Bank from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania, authorizing tho issuance of receivers’ certificates and the expenditure of the proceeds from the sale thereof.
Moorhead & Knox, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Hartswick, Arnold & Platt, J. P. O’Laughlin, and A. H. Woodward, all of Clearfield, Pa., for appellant.
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, of Pittsburgh, Pa., Wolf, Patterson, Block & Schorr, of Philadelphia, Pa., A. M. Liveright, of Clearfield, Pa., and Sidney E. Smith, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The exigencies of this receivership call for such a speedy decision of this ease that an extended discussion of its issues is impossible. Wo shall only say that in our opinion the money to> be raised on receivers’ certificates and to be applied in part to the discharge of tho corporation’s past-due indebtedness to service instructors and to many thousand widely scattered “knitters,” whereby the recovery of many thousand dollars worth of the corporation’s yarn and tho enhancement of the value of certain of its assets are made possible, will not, in tho peculiar character of the business, amount in law to preferential payment of the claims of unsecured creditors, but rather that such payment is a necessarily precedent factor in the conservation of the corporation’s property.
Tho decree of the District Court is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 6