opinion: ROBINSON BROTHERS & CO., Inc. v. TYGART STEEL PRODUCTS CO., Inc., et al.
  No. 10,132.
  United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
  Submitted March 21, 1950.
  Decided July 20, 1950.
  Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1950.
  Maurice L. Kessler, Leonard M. S. Morris, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief,-for appellant.
  Joseph E. Madva and" Thorp, Bostwick, Reed & Armstrong, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief, for appellee.
  Before McLAUGHLIN and KALOD-NER, Circuit Judges, and FEE, District Judge.
  PER CURIAM.
  In this case plaintiff brought claim against two defendants in the alternative. One defendant pleaded a counterclaim, which the Court, on motion, purported to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. There is doubt whether there is any judgment of record. Since the counterclaim was less than all of the claims involved in the action and there was no “express determination that there is no< just reason for delay,” and there is no “express direction for the entry of judgment,”' no final judgment has been entered under the terms of Rule 54(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Etten v. Kauffman, 3 Cir., 179 F.2d 302.
  The appeal must be dismissed.
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 "manufacturing". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto chemical drug food processing oil refining textile electronic alcohol or tobacco other unclear