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:
BLACK CRYSTAL COAL COMPANY, a co-partnership composed of Clifford Gaither and Bonnie Gaither; and Clifford Gaither and Bonnie Gaither, d/b/a Cedar Creek Coal Company, Appellants, v. GARLAND COAL & MINING COMPANY, a corporation; and The Investors’ Mortgage Security Company, Limited, a corporation, Appellees.
No. 6048.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
June 1, 1959.
Charles Hill Johns, Oklahoma City, Okl., and Cleon A. Summers, Muskogee, Okl. (Anita Ellerbee and Smith, Johns & Neuffer, Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellants.
Kelly Brown, Muskogee, Okl., and Hugh M. Bland, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellees.
Before MURRAH, LEWIS, and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.
This case presents the question of the liability of the lessee of one tenant in common to the other tenant in common and its lessee for coal mining operations.
The surface of the land involved and one-half of the mineral rights were owned by J. M. and Lizzie Gideon who gave a coal mining lease covering their one-half interest to appellant-defendant Black Crystal Coal Company, a partnership composed of Clifford and Bonnie Gaither. The Black Crystal interest passed to Clifford Gaither, doing business as Cedar Creek Coal Company. The other one-half interest in the minerals was owned by appellee-plaintiff The Investors’ Mortgage Security Company, Limited, which leased to Garland Coal & Mining Company.
Cedar Creek entered upon the premises and mined coal. Garland and Investors’ Mortgage Security sued to enjoin the Cedar Creek operations and to recover for the coal mined and sold. On trial the court found that Cedar Creek had mined 4,933.6 tons of coal and had sold that coal at $6.70 per ton. After determining and deducting from the sale price the reasonable and necessary expenses of extracting and marketing of the coal, the court held that $2 per ton “would be adequate compensation” and awarded to Garland and Investors’ Mortgage Security for their one-half interest judgment for $4,933.60 against Black Crystal, Cedar Creek and the two Gaithers.
When one tenant in common enters upon the premises of the tenancy and produces minerals therefrom, he is liable to account to his cotenants for the market value of such production less the reasonable expense of developing, extracting and marketing the same. Appellants recognize this rule but attack the findings of the trial court as to the deductible expenses. The evidence in regard thereto was conflicting and there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the court. Such findings are not clearly erroneous and must be sustained.
By way of counterclaim, the appellant-defendants asserted that they had been deprived of profits on their coal-mining operations by the conduct of the appellee-plaintiffs and the institution of this lawsuit. After the filing of the complaint the court denied injunctive relief but held that the plaintiffs were entitled to security to assure payment of any amounts found due on an accounting. The defendants did not file the required bond but instead ceased their operations and moved off their equipment. While it is true that one tenant in common may not exclude his cotenant from the premises held in common, there was no such exclusion here. Upon the filing of the bond to protect the plaintiffs’ recovery after accounting, the defendants could have continued their operations. They chose not to do so. There is no claim or evidence that the suit was prosecuted maliciously or without probable cause. Indeed, the contrary appears. If the defendants failed to recover the maximum profits, it was only because they discontinued operations when further operations were possible upon the furnishing of security to protect the co-tenant.
Finally, appellants argue that there should have been no judgment against Black Crystal because it had assigned to Cedar Creek. The terms of the assignment appear nowhere in the record. There is no showing that this issue was ever presented to, or considered by, the trial court. It was not mentioned in the Statement of Points. The point may not be raised for the first time in this court.
Affirmed,
. Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. Allen, 8 Cir., 2 F.2d 566, 574, 40 A.L.R. 1389; Essley v. Mershon, Okl., 262 P.2d 417, 420; Mershon v. Essley, 204 Okl. 660, 233 P.2d 293, 297; Meeker v. Denver Producing & Refining Co., 199 Okl. 455, 188 P.2d 854, 856; Earp v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation, 167 Okl. 86, 27 P.2d 855, 858, 91 A.L.R. 188; Moody v. Wagner, 167 Okl. 99, 23 P.2d 633, 635.
. Standard Oil Company v. Standard Oil Company, 10 Cir., 252 F.2d 65, 72, and cases cited in Note 16.
. Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. Allen, supra.
. Cf. 7 Moore, Federal Practice, p. 1659; United Motors Service v. Tropic-Aire, 8 Cir., 57 F.2d 479; Greenwood County v. Duke Power Co., 4 Cir., 107 F.2d 484, 487, 131 A.L.R. 870, certiorari denied 309 U.S. 667, 60 S.Ct. 608, 84 L.Ed. 1014.
. Stadia Oil & Uranium Company v. Wheelis, 10 Cir., 251 F.2d 269, 276; Marteney v. United States, 10 Cir., 245 F.2d 135, 140.

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: 3