opinion: AMANA REFRIGERATION, INC., Appellee, v. A. W. SCHMIDT TRANSFER, Appellant. AMANA REFRIGERATION, INC., Appellee, v. BRUCE MOTOR FREIGHT, INC., Appellant. PENICK & FORD, LIMITED, Appellee, v. ADMIRAL MERCHANTS MOTOR FREIGHT, INC., et al., Appellants. LeFEBURE CORPORATION, Appellee, v. BRUCE MOTOR FREIGHT, INCORPORATED, et al., Appellants. PENICK & FORD, LIMITED, Appellee, v. PACIFIC INTERMOUNTAIN EXPRESS CO., Appellant.
  Nos. 73-1507 to 73-1510, and 73-1683.
  United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
  Submitted Feb. 11, 1974.
  Decided July 29, 1974.
  Rehearings Denied Aug. 21, 1974.
  Arthur R. Hauver, Denver, Colo., for appellants.
  Edwin E. Huddleson, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Appellate Section, Washington, D.C., for United States.
  Robert B. Ward, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for Amana.
  John C. Noonan, Kansas City, Mo., for Western Electric.
  James F. McGovern, St. Paul, Minn., for Land O’Lakes.
  Don M. Jackson, Kansas City, Mo., for Proctor & Gamble.
  Before HEANEY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and WANGELIN, District Judge.
  H. KENNETH WANGEUN, District Judge, Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
  HEANEY, Circuit Judge.
  These are consolidated appeals by the defendant motor carriers from summary judgments entered in favor of the plaintiff shippers.
  The carriers in these cases raise substantially the same issues as were raised in Proctor and Gamble Distributing Co. v. Ideal Truck Lines, Inc., 501 F.2d 928 (8 Cir., filed this date). We affirm the judgments of the District Court for the reasons set forth in that opinion. Although the District Court awarded interest from October 12, 1971, a date later than was approved in Proctor and Gamble, the shippers have not raised this issue on appeal, and we affirm the District Court.
  Costs on appeal shall be taxed to the appellants.
  The appellees’ request for attorneys’ fees on appeal is denied.
  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 "transportation". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: railroad boat, shipping shipping freight, UPS, flying tigers airline truck, armored cars other unclear