opinion: STRAZZULLA BROS. CO. et al. v. FARGO REAL ESTATE TRUST.
  No. 4100.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
  Nov. 19, 1945.
  Henry Gesmer, of Boston, Mass. (Ka-batznick, Stern & Gesmer, of Boston, Mass., of counsel), for appellants.
  Lee M. Friedman, of Boston, Mass. (Friedman, Atherton, King & Turner, of Boston, Mass., of counsel), for appellee.
  Before ALBERT LEE STEPHENS, MAHONEY, and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  This is an appeal from the order of the District Court in a condemnation proceeding dismissing the claim of the appellants and striking out the appearance of their attorneys.
  On December 26, 1941, the United States Government condemned real estate, owned by the Fargo Real Estate Trust, in which the appellants had a lease for a term of years. The Fargo Trust elected to terminate the lease “in accordance with the provisions of said lease relating.to a public taking of said property.” The appellants then filed a claim for compensation. The lease contained the following provision:
  “Provided always that, if after the execution hereof and before the expiration of the said term the said' premises or any part thereof, or any part of the building of which they form a part, shall be taken for a street or other public use, * * * then this lease and the term demised shall terminate at the election of the lessor; or if the lessor shall not so elect, then, in case of any such injury to the premises demised, a just proportion of the rent hereinbefore reserved, according to the nature and extent of the injury sustained by the demised premises, shall be suspended or abated until the demised premises, or, in case of such taking, what may remain thereof shall have been put by the lessor in proper condition for use and occupancy.”
  The law governing appellants’ claim is the law of Massachusetts. Hence in accordance with the rule laid down in Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Boston Terminal Co., 176 Mass. 115, 57 N.E. 214, the order of the District Court is affirmed.
  The order of the District Court is affirmed with costs to the appellee.
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 "unclear". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto industry chemical industry drug industry food industry oil & gas industry clothing & textile industry electronic industry alcohol and tobacco industry other unclear