Task: songer_weightev

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?" This includes discussions of whether the litigant met the burden of proof. 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".

PER CURIAM.
The appellant and other creditors, with claims aggregating $1,319.64, voted for Albert L. Olsen as trustee for the bankrupt. Throe claims aggregating $855.36 voted for Thomas H. Cullen, Jr. (the receiver), and the referee appointed him trastee, stating that he declined to certify Mr. Olsen elected trastee because of a disapproval based upon the fact that Mr. Olsen’s election was controlled by the assignee’s attorneys. Cohen & Wedeen, attorneys in fact for the creditors who voted for Mr. Olsen, were also the attorneys for the assignee for the benefit of creditors. The assignee had no assets in his possession; the proceeds of the sale having been paid directly to the receiver.
Nothing in the record supports the eonelusion of the referee that Olsem was controlled by the assignee’s attorneys. By placing their claims in the hands of the attorneys for the assignee, the creditors did not thereby disqualify themselves from voting for the tras-tee. Olsen, who was nominated and voted for by the majority m number and amount of creditors, was not the assignee. The ret-eree stated that he declined “to approve any candidate whose selection the assignee or his attorneys controlled.” Section 44 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 USCA § 72) provides for the appointment of one or three trustees by creditors. General Order 13 (11 USCA § 53) provides that “the appointment of a trustee by the creditors shall he subject to be approved or disapproved, and he shall_be removable, by the referee or by the judge.’ But by statute the unqualified right to appoint trustees m bankruptcy vests in the creditors. In re Harris Construction Co. (D. C.) 37 F.(2d) 951; In re Van De Mark (D. C.) 175 F. 287; In re Malino (D. C.) 118 F. 368. Disapproval or removal must be based upon the exercise of wise judicial discretion. There must be reason for disapproval or removal. In re Mayflower Hat ,Co., 65 F. (2d) 330 (C. C. A. 2). Insufficient reason existed here for refusing the appointment of Olsen as trustee.
n Order reversed.

Question: Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: B