opinion: In the Matter of Edwin R. POWELL and Joshua E. Turner, Individually, and the Partnership Known as Powell & Turner, Composed of Edwin R. Powell and Joshua E. Turner, Alleged Bankrupts. Edwin R. Powell and Joshua E. Turner, Individually, and the Partnership Known as Powell & Turner, Composed of Edwin R. Powell and Joshua E. Turner, Appellants.
  No. 11372.
  United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
  Argued Nov. 18, 1954.
  Decided Nov. 26, 1954.
  Samuel R. Russell, Georgetown, Del., (Tunnell & Tunnell, Georgetown, Del., on the brief), for appellants.
  William Prickett, Wilmington, Del. (John E. Mulder, Wexler, Mulder & Weisman, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.
  Before GOODRICH, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  This case presents the question whether on á given date Edwin R. Powell and Joshua E. Turner were farmers and thus immune to an involuntary adjudication of bankruptcy under Section 4 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 22. The referee found that they were not. This finding was approved by the district judge who set out his reasons in a thoroughly considered opinion. In re Powell, D.C.D.Del.1954, 121 F.Supp. 33. There is, in our judgment, ample evidence to support his conclusion.
  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 "agriculture". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: single family farm commercial farm, agri-business farm - other  unclear