opinion: TRANE CO. v. NASH ENGINEERING CO.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
  July 18, 1928.
  No. 2181.
  Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts; James M. Morton, Judge.
  On petition for rehearing. Denied.
  For former opinion, see 25 F.(2d) 267.
  See, also, 20 F.(2d) 439; 22 F.(2d) 868.
  Fred L. Chappell, of Kalamazoo, Mich., Samuel D. Elmore, of Boston, Mass., and Arthur T. Holmes, of La Crosse, Wis., for appellant.
  Louis W. Southgate and Charles T. Hawley, both of Worcester, Mass., for appellee.
  Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  The gist of the defendant’s elaborate petition for rehearing is that on this record prior use and sale are, as a matter of law, made out. This contention cannot be sustained. Of the three sales urged, we fully concur with what the court below found and ruled concerning the Chicago Pump transaction and the S. D. Warren Paper Mill transaction. The third alleged prior sale, the William Penn Hotel transaction, was nothing but an executory contract made in May, 1915, for the Jennings apparatus, not completed and delivered so as to constitute an actual sale until September, 1915. Taking the facts in this transaction, although open to-a somewhat different construction, exactly as defendant’s learned counsel state them, the ease is ruled by McCreery Engineering Co. v. Massachusetts Fan Co. (C. C. A.) 195 F. 498, in which the same learned counsel made an exactly reverse contention, which was sustained by this court in an able opinion by Judge Brown, concurred in by Judges Putnam and Aldrich. We have no disposition to overrule that case.
  Petition denied.
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