Task: songer_stpolicy

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 interpretation of state or local law, executive order, administrative regulation, doctrine, or rule of procedure by the court favor the appellant?" 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 is an appeal from an order entered by the district court pursuant to a jury verdict adjudging appellant, Char-mar Investment Company (hereinafter “Charmar”), a bankrupt. A creditors’ petition for the involuntary bankruptcy of Charmar was filed by appellees in May 1971. Jurisdictional questions concerning appellees Adrian and Radbill’s qualifications as creditors under the Bankruptcy Act arose, and following resolution in favor of appellees in the district court, Charmar perfected an appeal to this Court. In In re Charmar Investment Co., 475 F.2d 560 (6th Cir. 1973), we held that “appellees Adrian and Radbill qualify as creditors under Section 59(b)” of the Bankruptcy Act and affirmed the district court decision. On Charmar’s demand the case was tried to a jury, which found that the sale of the major asset of the corporation to two of its shareholders was a preferential sale within the meaning of the Act and returned a verdict adverse to Charmar. This second appeal followed.
Appellant contends that the district court erred in not directing a verdict in its favor and in excluding testimony of the corporate officers and owners of the real estate in question as to its value and determination of sale price. Appellant has failed to point out and we are unable to find any record of a motion for a directed verdict in the proceedings below. A complaint that the trial court failed to direct a verdict addresses itself to the sufficiency of the evidence, and this Court will not consider the sufficiency of the evidence in the absence of a motion for a directed verdict unless a miscarriage of justice will result. Cutter v. Cincinnati Union Terminal Co., 361 F.2d 637 (6th Cir. 1966); Nailling v. United States, 124 F.2d 431 (6th Cir. 1941); see 5A J. Moore, Federal Practice jf 50.05 (2d ed. 1974). We find no miscarriage of justice.
Similarly, there is no record of the district judge refusing to admit testimony of corporate officers concerning the worth of the real estate involved, and therefore, this issue is not before us.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Question: Did the interpretation of state or local law, executive order, administrative regulation, doctrine, or rule of procedure by the court favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D