Task: songer_othappth

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 appeals court level. That is, it is conceded that the trial court properly reached the merits, but the issue is whether, in spite of that concession, the appellant has a right to an appeals court decision on the merits (e.g., the issue became moot after the trial).  The issue is: "Did the court refuse to rule on the merits of the appeal because of some threshhold issue other than timeliness or frivolousness that was relevant on appeal but not at the original trial? (e.g., the case became moot after the original trial)" 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".

WOOLLEY, Circuit Judge.
The decree here on appeal is for contempt and runs against the Republic Electric Company, Inc., and Herman J. Jaeger. It was entered when an appeal from a decree for a' preliminary injunction against these and other defendants was pending in this court. As Jaeger was on that appeal released from the preliminary injunction [27 F.(2d) 595], manifestly he cannot be held in contempt for violating an injunction from which he now stands discharged. Therefore the decree for contempt in so far as it affects Jaeger is re- ' versed.
Laying aside the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal and going directly to the merits, it appears that the only debatable ground for reversal of the decree advanced by Republic Electric Company, the remaining appellant, is that it was not served with notice of the order to show cause why it should not be attached and punished for contempt in violating the preliminary injunction. That ordinarily would be enough; but the facts throw a different light on the ease. They are briefly these:
The ■ appellant was and still is defendant in a suit for infringement brought by the appellee. It appeared generally and defended on the motion for a preliminary injunction and was present by counsel when the court awarded the injunction. The plaintiff asserts with some force that the appellant has concealed the names of its directors and other officers. Certainly it no longer maintains in New Jersey a statutory agent upon whom service of process may be made. It may have been for these reasons that the learned court, in framing its order to show cause in the contempt proceeding, expressly provided that “service upon defendant’s counsel (naming them) shall be deemed good and sufficient service.” Pursuant thereto service was made upon its counsel. As, evidently, that was the only way of reaching the defendant (now appellant), and in view of the fact that the appellant was at all times in court on a general appearance, had participated in all antecedent proceedings, and had also appeared in the contempt proceeding and defended on the ground of want of service, thereby showing actual knowledge and notice of the outstanding order, and had failed to apprise the appellee or the court of the names of its directors and officers whereby more formal service might be made, we hold that the court was justified in directing service of the order to show cause upon the appellant’s counsel and that in the circumstances it was a good service.
The decree against the Republic Electric Company, Inc., must stand, but for what amount? The decree as framed is against two defendants for $1,000.00. It has been reversed as to one. In the absence of anything which shows that liability on the decree is joint and several, the decree against the Republic Electric Company, Inc., will be affirmed when reduced to $500.00. Costs of appeal to be divided and borne equally by the corporate parties.

Question: Did the court refuse to rule on the merits of the appeal because of some threshhold issue other than timeliness or frivolousness that was relevant on appeal but not at the original trial?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D