Task: songer_jurisdiction

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the trial court level. These issues are only considered to be present if the court of appeals is reviewing whether or not the litigants should properly have been allowed to get a trial court decision on the merits. That is, the issue is whether or not the issue crossed properly the threshhold to get on the district court agenda. The issue is: "Did the court determine that it had jurisdiction to hear this case?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".If the opinion discusses challenges to the jurisdiction of the court to hear several different issues and the court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear some of the issues but did not have jurisdiction to hear other issues, answer "Mixed answer". 

PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises out of an action filed July 13, 1953, in which appellants sued for damages claimed to have been incurred from fraud practiced by appellee Carpenter and his agent J. F. Sheppord in the sale to appellants of interests in numerous mineral leases of land located in five counties of the State of Kentucky and in dealings between the parties growing out of such sales. The District Court held that appellants’ claims resting upon and arising out of transactions during the years 1946 and 1947 are barred by the five-year statute of limitations. Kentucky Revised Statutes, Sections 413.120(12) and 413.130 (3). As to subsequent activities of appellees involved herein, the court held that they were covered by an agreement executed April 10, 1951, between appellee Carpenter and his agent Shepperd and appellants herein, whereby, in consideration of assignment by appellee Carpenter and Shepperd of certain stock, and in consideration of the release by appellee Carpenter and Shepperd of certain claims, a full and final compromise and settlement of all controversies to date and release of all claims between the parties were effected.
Each of these holdings is plainly correct under the Kentucky statutes and applicable decisions.
The court, also, in extensive findings of fact, specifically found that fraud was not proved in the numerous transactions attacked by appellants. The testimony as to these matters was in general controverted. The court’s findings of fact are sustained by the record and are binding here. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.
Numerous other actions claimed to grow out of fraudulent dealings between appellee Carpenter and Shepperd and various parties are pending in the District Court. The decision herein necessarily applies only to the instant case and to transactions between appellee Carpenter and Shepperd and the particular appellants herein.
The judgment is affirmed upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and memorandum opinion filed by the District Court August 16, 1956.

Question: Did the court determine that it had jurisdiction to hear this case?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D