opinion: MUTUAL FACTORS, Inc. et al. v. BURCH.
  No. 5862.
  United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
  March 7, 1949.
  Archibald Palmer, of New York City (Edward L. Ward, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellants.
  George W. Constable and Francis B. Burch, both of Baltimore, Md. (H. Paul Rome, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellee.
  Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges..
  PER CURIAM.
  The real estate sold by the trustee in bankruptcy in this case was appraised for more than twice the amount of the mortgage indebtedness, and hence the court was justified in ordering a sale free from liens. The sale was adequately advertised •and properly conducted. It is true that the price obtained was much less than the appraised value, and even less than the amount of the mortgage debt, but there is nothing in the record to justify the expectation that the property would bring more at a resale. The unsecured creditors do not oppose the confirmation of the sale. No offer to pay more than the sum offered by the successful bidder at the auction sale has been received; and the mortgagee has declined the offer of the court to order a resale on the condition that the mortgagee secure the estate against any loss that might occur thereby. There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the court in refusing to set aside the sale. On the contrary, the order appealed from was entirely justified.
  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