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 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: 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: A