opinion: McMURRAY et al. v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN et al.
  No. 4585.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
  Dec. 29, 1931.
  Van A. Barrickman, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellants.
  E. B. Strassburger and E. E. McMonigle, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees.
  Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
  BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
  In the court below William F. MeMurray and others, members of a local labor lodge, brought a bill in equity against the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, a corporation of Ohio, and the parent organization of the local organization here concerned. As the ease developed, it became, clear that what was involved was seniority employment in an interstate railroad run and that the parties in interest in that question were the members of the local lodge in Pennsylvania at one end and the members of a loeal lodge in Ohio at the other end of the run. The dispute had been eventually carried to the highest tribunal of the Brotherhood and the contention of the Ohio lodge had been there sustained.
  On final hearing the court below held: “Plaintiffs have claimed, and their suit is founded thereon, that seniority rights upon the through runs are property rights. If so, this court cannot well make a decree which will wipe out the claimed property rights of the members of Lodge No. 421 [the Ohio lodge] without giving them an opportunity to be heard. The Dennison trainmen are probably not resident within this district, and so cannot be made parties in the instant action. It seems quite possible that they with the present defendants, could be joined in another district; but whether this be correct or not, they are essential parties, and a court of equity can properly make no effective order unless they be joined as defendants. Ex parte Equitable Trust Co. (C. C. A.) 231 F. 571, 592; California v. S. Pac. Co., 157 U. S. 229, 15 S. Ct. 591, 39 L. Ed. 683.”
  We agree with that view and, therefore, affirm the judgment 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 organization or association", specifically "business, trade, professional, or union (BTPU)". Your task is to determine what subcategory of private association best describes this litigant.
choices: Business or trade association utilities co-ops Professional association - other than law or medicine Legal professional association Medical professional association AFL-CIO union (private) Other private union Private Union - unable to determine whether in AFL-CIO Public employee union- in AFL-CIO (include groups called professional organizations if their role includes bargaining over wages and work conditions) Public Employee Union - not in AFL-CIO Public Employee Union - unable to determine if in AFL-CIO Union pension fund; other union funds (e.g., vacation funds) Other Unclear