opinion: DELAWARE & H. R. CORPORATION v. BONZIK, and five other cases.
  Nos. 6587-6592.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
  March 22, 1938.
  Paul Bedford, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa. (Joseph Rasch and Thomas L. Ennis, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
  R. L. Levy and A. M. Lucks, both of Scranton, Pa., for appellees.
  Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  In the court below the plaintiffs brought suit against the defendant railroad to recover damages suffered by them while riding on a freight train, through the alleged negligence of the railroad. The court refused the defendant’s request to give binding instructions and submitted the case to the jury. It, however, failed to agree. Thereupon, defendant moved for judgment n. o. v., which the court refused and'granted a new trial. Following this the railroad took these appeals.
  Without discussing the facts or indicating any opinion on the defendant’s motion, we regard the cases before us as appeals from the court’s grant of a new trial. In the absence of abuse of discretion, which cannot be contended in these cases, and regarding them as appeals from the grant of a new trial, no appeal lies, and accordingly the appeals are dismissed.
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 "transportation". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: railroad boat, shipping shipping freight, UPS, flying tigers airline truck, armored cars other unclear