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.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting in bankruptcy, denying a petition for allowance of counsel fees. The appellants are both attorneys who had claims against Noxon Chemical Products Company, Inc., which were paid in full. The appellant Unger appeared in the bankruptcy proceedings against that company in a three-fold capacity; first, as petitioning creditor, second, as attorney for himself as petitioning creditor, and, third, as attorney for the appellant Kahn, an intervening creditor. The appellants contend that a creditor who prosecutes involuntary bankruptcy proceedings is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee and requested $5,000 as counsel fee for Unger. The District Court refused to make an allowance.
We are of the opinion that when Unger appeared for himself as a petitioning creditor he was not in fact or in law acting in the capacity of an attorney, inasmuch as that term means one authorized to act for another. As a petitioning creditor, he appeared in the capacity of a claimant. There was therefore no abuse of discretion in the denial of a fee to Unger as attorney for himself as a claimant. He was, however, entitled to a fee as attorney for the appellant Kahn under section 64b (3) of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C.A. § 104(b)(3) which provides for the payment of one reasonable attorney’s fee for professional services actually rendered to the petitioning creditors in involuntary cases. The measure of the allowance is a matter within the discretion of the judge of the bankruptcy court, provided that the allowance is reasonable. The order of the court is reversed with direction to award a reasonable fee to Unger limited to compensation for his services as attorney for Kahn, the intervening creditor.
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: D