With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in having this suit considered is substantial. See United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632-633, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953); Washington v. Lee, 263 F.Supp. 327 (M.D.Ala.1966), aff’d, 390 U.S. 333, 88 S.Ct. 994, 19 L. Ed.2d 1212 (1968). Moreover, this suit may properly be brought as a class action. At oral argument, appellant declared the class to be all citizens of South Carolina whose personal property has been subjected to “claim and delivery” and those persons whose personal property will be claimed and delivered during the pendency of the federal action. As thus defined, the class is adequately delineated and appellant is clearly an appropriate representative of the class. See Thomas v. Clarke, 54 F.R.D. 245 (D.Minn. filed November 29, 1971) (three-judge Court) (<HOLDING>). At the time of judgment the individual

A: holding that states are persons but conceding that this change was not envisioned as broadening the class of persons who could be held liable under the act
B: holding that a plaintiffs lack of knowledge regarding the number of affected persons does not bar class certification when defendant has the means to identify those persons at will
C: holding that a class definition must be precise objective and presently ascertainable
D: holding adequately precise a class consisting of those persons who have had property seized under minnesotas claim and delivery law since the pendency of the federal case
D.