opinion: STEEL & TUBE CO. OF AMERICA v. DINGESS RUM COAL CO.
  (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
  January 13, 1925.)
  No. 2264.
  Appeal and error <®=^80 (4) — Final decree essential before appeal lies.
  Whore, after determining the liability of a defendant, there is reference to a special master to ascertain the amount, the case is not appealable until his report is made and final decree entered.
  Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington; George W. McClintic, Judge.
  Suit in equity by the Dingess Rum Coal Company against the Steel & Tube Company of America. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
  Appeal dismissed.
  J. Gilbert Hardgrove, of Milwaukee, Wis. (Arthur W. Fairchild, of Milwaukee, Wis., and Harold A. Ritz, of Charleston, W. Va., on the brief), for appellant.
  Douglas W. Brown, of Huntington, W. Va. (Rolla D. Campbell, Campbell & Campbell, and Fitzpatrick, Brown & Davis, all of Huntington, W. Va., on the brief), for appellee.
  Before WOODS, WADDILL, and ROSE, Circuit Judges.
  WOODS, Circuit Judge.
  The main issue in the District Court was whether the defendant was liable on its contract with the plaintiff for 10 per cent, royalty on coal used and not sold. This issue was decided in favor of the plaintiff. The decree fixed the number of tons upon which the royalty was due and the liability of the defendant for 10 per cent, of the market value thereon over $1 a ton. As a necessary preliminary to a final judgment, the decree directed a special master to ascertain the market value of the coal, and, upon the basis oí: that value, report the amount due by the defendant. There has been no report, and no final decree thereon. This court is therefore without jurisdiction; and the appeal must be dismissed. Roswell Beebe et al., v. William Russell, 19 How. 283, 285, 15 L. Ed. 668; Keystone Manganese Co. v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91, 10 S. Ct. 32, 33 L. Ed. 275; Lodge v. Twell, 135 U. S. 232, 10 S. Ct. 745, 34 L. Ed. 153; McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio Central R. Co., 146 U. S. 536, 13 S. Ct. 170, 36 L. Ed. 1079; Covington v. Covington First National Bank, 185 U. S. 270, 22 S. Ct. 645, 46 L. Ed. 906; Rexford v. Brunswick-Balke Co., 228 U. S. 340, 33 S. Ct. 515, 57 L. Ed. 864; Halfpenny v. Miller, 232 F. 113, 146 C. C. A. 305 (fourth circuit)
  Appeal 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 "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