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.

PAGE, Circuit Judge.
During June and November, 1916, defendant, in error, called plaintiff, a resident of Michigan, bought stock in the Inland Coal & Mining Company, an Indiana corporation, from plaintiff in error, called defendant, also an Indiana corporation, and plaintiff claims that the sales were made in the state of Michigan, without compliance by defendant with the 1915 Blue Sky Law of Michigan (chapter 230, Compiled Laws of Michigan 1915). The suit to recover the purchase money paid resulted in a judgment for plaintiff. •
It is urged:
(a) That the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the complaint. No demurrer was filed to the amended complaint.
(b) That the right of action must fail because it is brought under a Michigan statute which has been repealed. There are two sufficient answers to this contention: (1) We are of opinion that rights of action under that statute were saved by the new statute, enacted in 1923 (Pub. Acts 1923, No. 220, § 2). (2) The action was not brought under the statute; it was merely invoked to show the illegality of the acts by which the money sought to be recovered was obtained. The repeal of such a statute does not affect the legality of the transaction. Woods & Co. v. Armstrong, 54 Ala. 150, 25 Am. Rep. 671; Pacific Guano Co. v. Dawkins, 57 Ala. 115; Hochstettler v. Mosier Coal Co., 8 Ind. App. 442, 35 N. E. 927; Quarles v. Evans, 7 La. Ann. 543; Banchor v. Mansel, 47 Me. 58; Hathaway v. Moran, 44 Me. 67; Springfield Bank v. Merrick, 14 Mass. 322; Anding v. Levy, 57 Miss. 51, 34 Am. Rep. 435; Bailey v. Mogg, 4 Denio (N. Y.) 60; Puckett v. Alexander, 102 N. C. 95, 8 S. E. 767, 3 L. R. A. 43; Roby v. West, 4 N. H. 285, 17 Am. Dec. 423; Nichols v. Poulson, 6 Ohio, 305; Peters v. Goulden, 27 Mich. 171.
(c) That the transaction was unaffected by the Michigan statute, because it was an Indiana contract. There is some contradiction in the evidence on this point, but there is an abundance of evidence to support the finding made by the court.
The judgment is affirmed.

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

Answer: B