opinion: McCANN v. ANCHOR LINE (Henderson Brothers), Limited, et al.
  No. 476.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
  July 1, 1935.
  Lord, Day & Lord, of New York City (Thaddeus G. Cowell and Woodson D. Scott, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
  Lucien V. Axtell and Francis Cunningham; both of New York City (Joseph A. Fagnant and Silas B. Axtell, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
  Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  The only point requiring discussion in this case is whether the plaintiff was an “invited person” or a “business visitor” while on board the defendant’s ship, the Caledonia, in the port of New York. She had gone on board to say good-bye to a friend who was a passenger, and while there caught her foot upon the top of a companionway, which we must assume to have been negligently left out of repair. If she was merely a licensee, the defendant was not liable; otherwise, if she was a business visitor. The passenger’s daughter had invited her to see her mother off when the ship left, and on that invitation she boarded the vessel and was walking with a party of three or four, one of whom was the passenger’s son-in-law, towards the passenger’s stateroom. The jury might infer that the passenger had already seen her, had welcomed her, and wished her to go to the stateroom; in other words, that the passenger had invited her to join the party after she came on board.
  The books are not altogether clear as to the duty of a railway company towards those who come on its premises to say good-bye to, or to meet, its passengers. When the purpose is to help or guard the passenger, the attendant is certainly a business visitor, but, when it is merely to greet or speed him, the decisions are not uniform. Tn Galveston, etc., Ry. Co. v. Matzdorf, 102 Tex. 42, 112 S. W. 1036, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 833, 132 Am. St. Rep. 849, Arkansas, etc., Ry. Co. v. Sain, 90 Ark. 278, 119 S. W. 659, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 910, and Montgomery, etc., Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 77 Ala. 448, 457, 54 Am. Rep. 72 (semble), the visitor was treated as a licensee only. Not so in McKone v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 51 Mich. 601, 17 N. W. 74, 47 Am. Rep. 596, Banderob v. Wisconsin Cent. Ry. Co., 133 Wis. 249, 113 N. W. 738, Hutchins v. Penobscot, etc., Steamboat Co., 110 Me. 369, 86 A. 250, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 132, and Powell v. Great Lakes, etc., Corporation, 152 Minn. 90, 188 N. W. 61 (the last case concerned a steamship company). We do not find it necessary to decide that question, because the visiting friend of a passenger -leaving on a transatlantic steamer appears to us to be in another class. The tradition still to some extent endures that such a trip is an occasion of some consequence; passengers like to have their friends see them off, and have come so far to expect it as part of the prerequisites of the trip that they would resent its denial in a way that would be serious to the line that undertook to deny it. It seems to us that for this reason leave to visitors to go aboard is in the interest of the shipowner; it is a customary appurtenance of his passengers’ privileges which he cannot safely refuse, which indeed it is not extravagant to consider as one of the inducements that he holds out to them, and for which he is paid.
  Judgment 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.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
  If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
  Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.