opinion: Jerome S. MURRAY, Appellant, v. WEINBERG & BUSH, INC., a corporation, Appellee. WEINBERG & BUSH, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. H. Max AMMERMAN, Irving S. Lichtman, and Parkwood, Inc., a corporation, Appellees.
  Nos. 16148, 16147.
  United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
  Argued May 24,1961.
  Decided June 15, 1961.
  Mr. Denis K. Lane, Washington, D. C. , for appellant in No. 16148.
  Mr. James M. Earnest, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. James D. Newton, Nathaniel Goldberg and Martin Kirsch, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee in No. 16148 and for appellant in No. 16147.
  Mr. Lucien Hilmer, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress and J. H. Krug, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, submitted on the brief, for appellees, Ammerman and Lichtman, in No. 16147. Mr. Joseph G. Dooley, Washington, D. C., submitted on the brief, for appellee, Parkwood, Inc., in No. 16147.
  Before Edgerton, Washington and Bastían, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  Weinberg & Bush, Inc., appellee in No. 16,148 and appellant in No. 16,147, filed its complaint in the District Court seeking to recover the sum of $20,000.00, growing out of a real estate transaction in which it claimed to be entitled to a broker’s commission. The suit was against the seller, Parkwood, Incorporated, an appellee in No. 16,147, the purchasers, H. Max Ammerman and Irving S. Lichtman, also appellees in No. 16,147, arid Jerome S. Murray, appellant in No. 16,148. The judgment sought against Murray was based on the theory that he had purported to act as agent for Parkwood, Incorporated in the real estate transaction but that he was without authority from Parkwood to do so.
  The question whether Weinberg & Bush, Inc. was the procuring cause of the transaction was disputed. The trial court found that it was. The matter of the authority of Murray was hotly contested; and, on conflicting testimony, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Weinberg & Bush, Inc. against Murray on the ground that he had acted as agent, without authority. Murray duly noted his appeal in the case which is now No. 16,148.
  Insofar as Parkwood, Incorporated was concerned, the court found that it did not hire Weinberg & Bush, Inc. nor authorize Murray or any one else to do so. Insofar as Ammerman and Lichtman were concerned, the court found that no valid claim for relief existed. The court rendered judgment in favor of Parkwood, Incorporated and Ammerman and Lichtman against Weinberg & Bush, Inc. In order to protect itself in the event the judgment against Murray was reversed, Weinberg & Bush, Inc. appealed in the case which is now No. 16,147.
  We are unable to say that the findings in favor of Weinberg & Bush, Inc. against Murray are clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment against Murray, in No. 16,148, is affirmed.
  It is conceded by Weinberg & Bush, Inc. that if the judgment against Murray were affirmed, the judgment against Weinberg & Bush, Inc. in favor of Park-wood, Inc. and Ammerman and Lichtman should likewise be affirmed. Therefore, the judgment in No. 16,147 is affirmed.
  No. 16,148 affirmed
  No. 16,147 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 "other". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: medical clinics, health organizations, nursing homes, medical doctors, medical labs, or other private health care facilities private attorney or law firm media - including magazines, newspapers, radio & TV stations and networks, cable TV, news organizations school - for profit private educational enterprise (including business and trade schools) housing, car, or durable goods rental or lease entertainment: amusement parks, race tracks, for profit camps, record companies, movie theaters and producers, ski resorts, hotels, restaurants, etc. information processing consulting security and/or maintenance service other service (including accounting) other (including a business pension fund) unclear