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 is an appeal from an order refusing to adjudicate appellant a bankrupt under subsection (s) of section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended by the second Frazier-Lemke Act (Act Aug. 28, 1935, § 6 [11 U.S.C.A. § 203 (s). The judge below approved findings by the Conciliation Commissioner to the effect that an offer of composition and extension had not been made in good faith by the bankrupt; and he accordingly refused an adjudication of bankruptcy and dismissed the proceedings on that ground. For that reason, he found it unnecessary to pass upon the constitutional validity of the second Frazier-Lemke Act, although this was duly challenged in appellees’ motion to dismiss. We find nothing in the record which would justify us in disturbing the order of the District Judge approving the findings of the Conciliation Commissioner, and we agree that these afford sufficient ground for denying the adjudication and dismissing the proceedings. In re Borgelt (C.C.A.7th) 79 F.(2d) 929. In addition to this, we have recently held that the second Frazier-Lemke Act is void because violative of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Robert Page Wright, Bankrupt, v. Vinton Branch of Mountain Trust Bank and five other cases (C.C.A. 4th) 85 F.(2d) 973. In any aspect of the case, therefore, the judge below properly denied the adjudication and dismissed-, the petition. The order appealed from will accordingly be affirmed.
Affirmed.

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: D