opinion: PARK ROAD HOUSING COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. ADAS ISRAEL HEBREW CONGREGATION et al., Appellees.
  No. 12245.
  United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
  Argued May 9, 1955.
  Decided June 16, 1955.
  Petition for Rehearing Denied July 13, 1955.
  Messrs. Thurman L. Dodson and E. Lewis Ferrell, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
  Mr. Leon M. Shinberg, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Martin S. Becker, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Adas Israel Hebrew Congregation.
  Mr. Jacob N. Halper, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Ernest F. Coleman, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Bishop L. H. Hemingway and certain other appellees.
  Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN, and WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  The plaintiff real estate broker appeals from a judgment for the defendants in an action for a commission. Count I of the complaint asks judgment against the seller for the amount of the commission which the seller paid to a different broker, the Colonial Investment Company. Count II asks judgment for the same amount, against both the seller and the purchasers, as damages caused by collusion between them to deprive the plaintiff of the commission.
  “To become entitled to a commission, a broker must find a purchaser who is able and willing to buy on the identical terms offered by the seller. * * * It is true that the plaintiff first introduced the eventual purchaser to the defendant, but this circumstance alone, though significant, is not determinative, in the present circumstances.” Battle v. Price, 63 App.D.C. 326, 327, 72 F.2d 377, 378. The eventual purchaser was not able and willing to buy on the terms offered by the seller until the Colonial Investment Company suggested means of financing the purchase. The evidence supports the District Court’s finding that there was no collusion.
  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 "other". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: medical clinics, health organizations, nursing homes, medical doctors, medical labs, or other private health care facilities private attorney or law firm media - including magazines, newspapers, radio & TV stations and networks, cable TV, news organizations school - for profit private educational enterprise (including business and trade schools) housing, car, or durable goods rental or lease entertainment: amusement parks, race tracks, for profit camps, record companies, movie theaters and producers, ski resorts, hotels, restaurants, etc. information processing consulting security and/or maintenance service other service (including accounting) other (including a business pension fund) unclear