opinion: Norman DODD and Aaron M. Sargent, Trustees under Joint Venture Agreement of Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., Appellants, v. PIOCHE MINES CONSOLIDATED, INC., Helen Dolman, Shareholders of said Corporation, and Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Company, Appellees.
  No. 17519.
  United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
  Sept. 24, 1962.
  Ernest S. Brown and Jack I. Mc-Auliffe, Reno, Nev., for appellant.
  T. David Horton, Francis T. Cornish, Berkeley, Cal., Roscoe H. Wilkes, Pioche, Nev., and Harold M. Morse, Las Vegas, Nev., for appellee Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc.
  Sullivan, Roche, Johnson & Farraher, San Francisco, Cal., and Alvin N. Wart-man, Las Vegas, Nev., for appellee Helen Dolman.
  William J. Forman, Reno, Nev., George H. Johnston and Willard P. Norberg, San Francisco, Cal., Woodbum, Forman, Wedge, Blakey & Folsom, Reno, Nev., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., and Ackerman, Johnston, Johnston & Mathews, San Francisco, Cal., for ap-pellee Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co.
  Before HAMLEY and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR, District Judge.
  PER CURIAM.
  Appellants Norman Dodd and Aaron M. Sargent, two of three trustees named in a joint venture agreement with Ap-pellee Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., have appealed to this Court from an Order of the trial court denying their motion to be substituted as counter-claimants in this litigation.
  In reaching our decision here we are assuming, without deciding, that the order denying the motion for substitution is appealable.
  The substitution or joinder of Appellants as counterclaimants rested in the discretion of the district court and was not mandatory. Rule 25(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.; Virginia Land Co. v. Miami Shipbuilding Corp., 201 F.2d 506 (5th Cir.1953); Sun-Maid Raisin Growers of California v. California Packing Corporation, 273 F.2d 282 (9th Cir.1959).
  On an examination of the record we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of Appellants.
  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 "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