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.

GARDNER, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an adjudication of bankruptcy under section 75 (s) of the Bankruptcy Act as amended August 28, 1935 (11 U.S.C.A. § 203 (s), and which embodied a reference to a conciliation commissioner. The record discloses the following pertinent facts:
On February 26, 1930, appellee executed his promissory note to appellant in the sum of $1,000, due one year after date, with interest at the rate of 10 per cent., which he secured by a mortgage on 80 acres of land located in Johnson county, Ark. He paid the interest on this note for 1931 and 1932. On January 5, 1931, he executed another note in the sum of $400, due one year after date, with interest at 10 per cent., to Guy Walton, which he secured by a mortgage on the same land. This note and mortgage in due course were sold and transferred to appellant. One payment of interest was made on this last-named note in 1932. There has been no payment on principal or interest on either of these notes since 1932. Appellant paid insurance on the mortgaged property for the years 1933, 1934, and 1935, in the sum of $87.20, and paid taxes for the years 1932, 1933, and 1934, in the sum of $93.92.
On April 26, 1935, appellant commenced suit to foreclose these mortgages, and on the same date appellee filed petition for composition or extension under section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act (47 Stat. 1470, 48 Stat. 925, 1289) in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas, and the cause was referred to the conciliation commissioner. Testimony was taken before the conciliation commissioner. Appellee offered a composition or extension proposal which was rejected, and on January 31, 1936, he filed an amended petition for adjudication under section 75 (s) of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended (11 U.S.C.A. § 203 (s). Appellant filed answer to appellee’s petition, in which he asserted that subsection (s) of section 75 was unconstitutional. The lower court overruled and denied appellant’s contention, and entered the adjudication from which this appeal was taken.
It is the contention of appellant: (1) That subsection (s) of section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended, is unconstitutional ; and (2) that, if not, there was no probability of rehabilitation of the bankrupt. Appellee has filed no brief in this court.
The decree appealed from was entered by the lower court before the opinion of this court in United States National Bank v. Pamp, 83 F.(2d) 493, was handed down. The facts in this case bring it clearly within the doctrine of the Pamp Case, and, on the authority of that case, the decree appealed from must be and is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the lower court, with directions to dismiss appellee’s petition.

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

Answer: B