opinion: John E. STEVENS v. The BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. LUCERNE COKE COMPANY, a Corporation, Shenango Furnace Company, a Corporation, and Shenango, Inc., a Corporation, Appellants.
  No. 16945.
  United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
  Argued May 9, 1968.
  Decided May 27, 1968.
  Henry R. Rea, Jr., Brandt, Riester, Brandt & Malone, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellants.
  John J. Repcheck, Mercer & Buckley, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
  PER CURIAM:
  Plaintiff, Stevens, settled his claim against the defendant, The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, for $14,000. Thereafter the claim by The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company as third party plaintiff against the third party defendants was tried by a judge without a jury and he entered an order holding the third party defendants liable to the railroad in the amount of the settlement by virtue of an indemnity agreement which had been entered into between them. The third party defendants appeal from the judgment against them.
  What is involved is the interpretation of the indemnity agreement and whether it applies to the use of the railroad sidetrack as well as the unloading facility itself.
  We have given careful consideration to the arguments of both sides and to the agreement itself and are satisfied that the interpretation made by the district court was proper.
  The judgment of the district court will be 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 "mining". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: oil and gas coal metals other  unclear