opinion: LAZZARA v. WISCONSIN BOXING CLUB.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
  December 4, 1928.
  No. 4004.
  Evan A. Evans, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
  Raymond J. Cannon, of Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff in error.
  George A. Bums, of Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant in error.
  Before EYANS, PAGE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
  PAGE, Circuit Judge.
  Excluding the averments in the declaration charging liability against the Wisconsin State Athletic Commission and the Fraternal Order of Eagles, former defendants .herein, dismissed out of the case by consent, the allegations against the remaining defendant, the Wisconsin Roxing Club, amount to no more than this: That by an entire agreement, made in writing, plaintiff was to box 10 rounds, in consideration of which defendant was to pay him $10,000; that defendant refused to pay; that plaintiff did not box the 10 rounds because he was wrongfully prevented from doing so by a member of the Wisconsin Athletic Commission and its refeee. It is not claimed that they were the agents for, or under the control of, the defendant, or that defendant profited thereby. No cause of action is stated against defendant.
  The decision of Judge Geiger is right, find the judgment 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