opinion: FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
  Appellee, as trustee in bankruptcy of Paramount Dairy Company, brought this suit under the provisions of Section 60 National Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 96, to recover preferential payments made to appellant by the bankrupt. It was tried to a jury and a verdict was rendered in appellee’s favor, upon which judgment was entered. Errors are assigned to the overruling of a plea of res adjudicata and to the denial of a directed verdict.
  The plea of res adjudicata is based upon a judgment of the Superior Court of De Kalb County, Georgia, dismissing on demurrer a suit brought by appellee against Southern Grocery Stores, Inc. (appellant), Southern Dairy Corporation, and four individuals, charging them, in effect, with fraudulent conversion of the assets of the bankrupt. That suit was brought under the law of Georgia and sounded in tort. Recovery of preferences was not an issue in that suit and the question was not decided. The suit at bar is based upon a right given the trustee by a Federal statute. Fraud is not an ingredient. While the parties are the same, it is evident the cause of action is different. The plea of res adjudicata was properly overruled. Troxell v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 227 U.S. 434, 33 S.Ct. 274, 57 L.Ed. 586.
  The motion for a directed verdict was on the ground that there was no proof showing the bankrupt was insolvent at the times the preferences were received. It is further contended it was not shown appellant had reasonable cause to know the bankrupt was insolvent or that it was being granted preferences. The amount of the verdict is not disputed. On this point it is sufficient to say we find substantial evidence in the record tending to support the verdict.
  No prejudicial error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
instruction: 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)", specifically "trade". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto, auto parts, auto repairs chemical drug food oil, natural gas, gasoline textile, clothing electronic alcohol or tobacco general merchandise other  unclear