opinion: Harry BERENTER, Appellant, v. Ruth E. STAGGERS et al., Appellees.
  No. 19987.
  United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
  Argued May 12, 1966.
  Decided May 26, 1966.
  Mr. Mark P. Friedlander, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Mark P. Friedlander, Blaine P. Friedlander, Washington, D. C., Harry P. Friedlander, Arlington, Va., were on the brief, for appellant.
  Mr. Leonard C. Collins, Washington, D. C., for appellees.
  Before Wilbur K. Miller, Senior Circuit Judge, and Fahy and Danaher, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM:
  The District Court dismissed this appellant’s complaint to enforce a mechanic’s lien against premises located at 501 D Street, N. W. in the District of Columbia. He had alleged that the owner of the property, decedent, John W. Staggers, “by and through his agent and lessee, Diana Auger engaged” the appellant’s services in remodeling and repairing the premises for use as a restaurant “known as Colonial Inn.” His complaint further alleged that the decedent Staggers “by and through his agent, agreed to pay” for the labor and materials. The agreement was oral.
  D.C.Code § 38-111 (1961) provides that if “the right of the complainant * * * to the lien * * * shall be established, the court shall decree a sale of the land and premises or the estate and interest therein of the person who, as owner, contracted [for the work done].” The District Judge found that there had been no testimony to establish that Diana Auger was the agent of the deceased; that the appellant’s testimony had been inconsistent, contradictory and improbable on the issue of whether or not the deceased agreed to pay for the work. The trier refused to accept as “creditable the testimony of the plaintiff that the deceased himself promised to pay for this work and materials.” Additionally, the findings are specific that “the testimony of the plaintiff that the deceased promised to pay for the labor and materials was not corroborated by the ambiguous testimony of * * * the only other witness, to the effect that the deceased would take care of the matter and see to it that Berenter got his money.” We have been asked to set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the record as a whole would demonstrate error on the part of the trial judge. Our examination leads us to conclude, however, that the trial judge did not err in granting the appellees’ motion for involuntary dismissal.
  The judgment is
  Affirmed.
  . Compare D.C.Code § 14-302 (1961).
  . Certainly error is not to be presumed but must be made affirmatively to appear by the party asserting it, Wabash Ry. Co. v. Bridal, 94 F.2d 117, 121 (8 Cir.), cert. denied 305 U.S. 602, 59 S.Ct. 63, 83 L. Ed. 382 (1938); cf. T.V.T. Corporation v. Basiliko, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 181, 183, 257 F.2d 185, 187 (1958).
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