Task: songer_direct1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision, coded as "liberal" or "conservative". Consider liberal to be for government tax claim; for person claiming patent or copyright infringement; for the plaintiff alleging the injury; for economic underdog if one party is clearly an underdog in comparison to the other, neither party is clearly an economic underdog; in cases pitting an individual against a business, the individual is presumed to be the economic underdog unless there is a clear indication in the opinion to the contrary; for debtor or bankrupt; for government or private party raising claim of violation of antitrust laws, or party opposing merger; for the economic underdog in private conflict over securities; for individual claiming a benefit from government; for government in disputes over government contracts and government seizure of property; for government regulation in government regulation of business; for greater protection of the environment or greater consumer protection (even if anti-government); for the injured party in admiralty - personal injury; for economic underdog in admiralty and miscellaneous economic cases. Consider the directionality to be "mixed" if the directionality of the decision was intermediate to the extremes defined above or if the decision was mixed (e.g., the conviction of defendant in a criminal trial was affirmed on one count but reversed on a second count or if the conviction was afirmed but the sentence was reduced). Consider "not ascertained" if the directionality could not be determined or if the outcome could not be classified according to any conventional outcome standards.

PER CURIAM.
This case was heard upon the record, briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties;
And it appearing that the only material factual issue presented by the pleadings is whether the First Baneredit Corporation, from whom the appellee United States acquired the negotiable promissory note herein sued on, acquired the note from the payee before maturity so as to make it a holder in due course not subject to the defenses alleged in appellants’ answer; Schaffer v. United States, 6 Cir., 216 F.2d 330;
And appellee having filed in support of its motion for summary judgment the affidavit of the Secretary of the First Bancredit Corporation stating that it purchased the note from the payee on January 15, 1940, which was prior to the due date of the first installment payment and said affidavit being uncontradicted and not discredited by appellants, and no showing having been made by appellants that there is any evidence now known to them that would in any way contradict said affidavit;
It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court in favor of the appellee for the unpaid balance on the note, be affirmed. Appolonio v. Baxter, 6 Cir., 217 F.2d 267, 271; Gifford v. Travelers Protective Association, 9 Cir., 153 F.2d 209, 211; Zampos v. U. S. Smelting, Refining & Mining Co., 10 Cir., 206 F.2d 171, 174.

Question: What is the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision?
A. conservative
B. liberal
C. mixed
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A