Task: songer_oththres

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 refuse to rule on the merits of the appeal because of a threshhold issue other than lack of jurisdiction, standing, mootness, failure to state a claim, exhaustion, timeliness, immunity, frivolousness, or nonjusticiable political question?" 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".

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.
In Security-First National Bank v. United States, 9 Cir., 153 F.2d 563, we affirmed an order which, on February 6, 1945, affirmed an order of a referee in bankruptcy-which, on June 6, 1944, directed H. F. Met-calf, trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of F. P. Newport Corporation, Limited, bankrupt, to pay a claim of the United States, appellant here, for income taxes ($19,-363.65, plus interest) assessed against the trustee for the calendar years 1938 and 1939. The taxes were assessed on income-(rents and royalties) received by the trustee from the trust property mentioned in. Security-First National Bank v. United States, supra. The order of June 6, 1944, directed the trustee to pay appellant’s claim: out of income received or to be received: from the trust property.
The trustee did not obey the order of June 6, 1944. Instead, he applied for and, on October 17, 1944, obtained from the referee an order directing him to pay Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles, a secured creditor of the bankrupt, $5,264.11 out of income received from the trust property — income on which taxes were then, and are now, due and owing to appellant. The court affirmed the order of October 17, 1944, by an order entered on April 13, 1945. From the order of April 13, 1945, appellant has appealed.
As indicated above, the order of October 17, 1944, in effect, directed that, before paying taxes on income received by him from the trust property, the trustee should pay the bank $5,264.11 out of such income. Thus, in effect, it was held that the bank’s right in and to such income was superior to appellant’s right to taxes thereon. We have held otherwise. The order of October 17, 1944, should not have been applied for, granted or affirmed.
The order of April 13, 1945, here appealed from, is reversed.
See Security-First National Bank v. United States, supra.
See Security-First National Bank v. United States, supra.

Question: Did the court refuse to rule on the merits of the appeal because of a threshhold issue other than lack of jurisdiction, standing, mootness, failure to state a claim, exhaustion, timeliness, immunity, frivolousness, or nonjusticiable political question?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D