opinion: P. D. MARCHESSINI & CO. (NEW YORK), Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H. W. ROBINSON & CO., Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
  No. 476, Docket 32084.
  United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
  Argued May 2, 1968.
  Decided May 9, 1968.
  Alvin L. Stern, New York City, (Poles, Tublin, Patestides & Stratakis, New York City; John G. Poles, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
  John H. Cleveland, III, New York City, (Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City; Charles Grice McMullan, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
  Before WATERMAN, FRIENDLY and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM:
  P. D. Marchessini & Co. (New York), Inc., a steamship operator, appeals from a judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing a libel against H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc., a freight forwarder. The libel sought damages of $201,500 for breach of a contract for the shipment of 260 locomotive trucks, weighing 1057 long tons and occupying 156,000 cubic feet of space, from New York to Yokohama. The contract was evidenced by a “booking note” executed on behalf of Robinson by Edward C. Boyens, who was listed in a standard trade publication under Robinson’s name and advertisement opposite the rubric “Export Department.”
  We need not determine whether, despite the absence of any statement in the booking note that Robinson was acting only as agent for an undisclosed shipper, the dealings between the parties did not make this sufficiently plain to Marchessini as to preclude its recovering against Robinson as a principal. See ALI, Restatement 2d, Agency, § 322, § 336, comment d (1958); 2 Williston, Contracts, § 283-85 (3d ed. 1959). Assuming this point in Marehessini’s favor, it still had the burden of establishing Boy-ens’ authority to bind Robinson. The absence of actual authority is clear, and the judge was warranted in concluding that Marchessini had not established apparent authority. Although Marches-sini’s policy was to attempt to obtain signed booking contracts from freight forwarders, Robinson’s policy was to avoid such signature. Boyens denied having signed any previous booking notes with Marchessini except on a single occasion when he had specific authority from the shipper and signed in a manner making plain that Robinson was acting solely as agent for a named principal. There was no evidence that he had apparent authority to commit his employer, for a small commission, to a contract that would entail large liabilities to the steamship operator in the event of default by a client whose conduct was beyond its control.
  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 "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