opinion: THE GRETCHEN. THE MINERVA. THE DAUNTLESS NO. 12. KIECKHEFER CONTAINER COMPANY, Owner of Barge Gretchen v. Tug MINERVA, etc., and Susanna E. Burritt, etc., et al., Appellants, and Tug Dauntless No. 12, etc., and Chris. Nielson, et al., etc., Impleaded Respondents.
  No. 9130.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
  Argued June 19, 1946.
  Decided July 3, 1946.
  Howard M. Long, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Howard T. Long, of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.
  Anthony V. Lynch, Jr., of New York City (Samuel B. Fortenbaugh, Jr., and Shields, Clark, Brown and McCown, all of Philadelphia, Pa., and Pyne and Lynch, of New York City, on the brief), for Dauntless Towing Line.
  Leslie C. Krusen, of Philadephia, Pa., for libellant.
  Before BIGGS, McLAUGHLIN and O’CONNELL, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  An examination of the briefs of the parties and the appendix leads us to the conclusion that the decision of the court below was correct. See 58 F.Supp. 884. Much of the testimony was directly in conflict. Our conclusions as to the credibility of the witnesses and the interpretation to be put upon the evidence coincide in all substantial particulars with those expressed by the District Court. Accordingly, the decree appealed from 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 "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