opinion: DOUGHERTY DISTILLERY WAREHOUSE CO., Inc., Appellant, v. FRANKFORT DISTILLERY, Inc., Appellee.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
  February 5, 1929.
  No. 3957.
  Chester N. Parr, Jr., and 'William A. Glasgow, Jr., both of Philadelphia, Pa., and Levi Cooke, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
  Robert P. Irwin, Jr., and Prank Rogers Donahue, both of Philadelphia, Pa., and A. J. Carroll, of Louisville, Ky., for appellee.
  Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  In the court below [31 F.(2d) 217] the Prankfort Distillery, a corporate citizen of West Virginia, brought a bill in equity against the Dougherty Distillery Warehouse Company, a corporate citizen of Pennsylvania, the purpose of which was to compel the defendant to allow the plaintiff, by and with the consent of the government, to remove from the concentration warehouse of the defendant to the concentration warehouse of the plaintiff certain whisky owned by the plaintiff. In answer the defendant contended that such removal was not by law permissible. After hearing, the court entered a decree in favor of the plaintiff, and from it the defendant appealed.
  In view of the full and satisfactory discussion of the whole subject by the trial judge, nothing would be gained by a restatement in a further opinion by this Court. The conclusion reached by Judge Dickinson is supported by Simon v. Prankfort Distillery, 2 F.(2d) 949, where the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit had before it the underlying question in this ease. After argument and full consideration had, we find ourselves in entire accord with that decision, and consequently with the decision of Judge Dickinson, and therefore we affirm the decree below.
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