opinion: Kenneth O. HART, Appellant, v. BLUE RIBBON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellee.
  No. 19668.
  United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
  Jan. 23, 1963.
  Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1963.
  Timothy P. Poulton, West Palm Beach, Fla., R. Bruce Jones, Jones, Adams, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, Fla., for appellant.
  Louis M. Jepeway, Joseph Gassen, Jep-eway & Gassen, Miami, Fla., for appellee.
  Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and JONES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  The appellant, Kenneth O. Hart, com-lains of the order of the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, on his petition to review an order of a Referee in Bankruptcy. The District Court affirmed the order of the Referee.
  Blue Ribbon Construction Company obtained a franchise from the City of Lan-tana, Florida, to furnish water and sewage facilities to certain lots owned by Blue Ribbon which it sold to Lindsey-Mundy Corporation for $2,850.00 per lot; $850.00 of the purchase price being allocated to the installation cost of running lines for the proposed service. Lindsey-Mundy made no down payment, but gave a purchase money mortgage to-Blue Ribbon and thereafter mortgaged the property to Builders Finance Corporation for a construction loan, and Blue-Ribbon subordinated its mortgage to the mortgage of Builders Finance which had the effect of making the latter a first, mortgage. There is a statement in the subordination agreement and in the mortgage from Lindsey-Mundy to Blue Ribbon that Blue Ribbon will provide sewer and water mains at its own expense, and. a statement to the effect that the agreement shall inure to the benefit of “ * * *• successors or assigns * * * ”.
  Lindsey-Mundy became a bankrupt and Builders Finance foreclosed its mortgage- and became the purchaser at the sale. The property was sold in the bankruptcy-proceedings free and clear of all liens. Thereafter, Hart purchased 25 lots from Builders Finance and now seeks a mandatory injunction to require Blue Ribbon to furnish a “hook-up” of the lines to the 25 houses at nominal cost and contends that he (Hart) should not be required to pay the $850.00 now demanded by Blue-Ribbon.
  The District Court held that at the-foreclosure sale, Builders Finance could get only the interest which Lindsey-Mundy held in the land; that the water and sewage rights were not an interest in the land, and further that no effort was made to convey the same to Hart. Accordingly, any obligation which existed between Blue Ribbon and Lindsey-Mundy with respect to water and sewage was not such an interest as was conveyed at the foreclosure sale; nor was any other effort made to transfer such rights to Hart. It was further held that no third party beneficiary rights were created in Hart. ~
  We have carefully reviewed the order of the Referee and the order of the District Court affirming it and have concluded that it should be affirmed.
  The judgment is 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