Task: songer_oththres

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the trial court level. These issues are only considered to be present if the court of appeals is reviewing whether or not the litigants should properly have been allowed to get a trial court decision on the merits. That is, the issue is whether or not the issue crossed properly the threshhold to get on the district court agenda. The issue is: "Did the court refuse to rule on the merits of the appeal because of a threshhold issue other than lack of jurisdiction, standing, mootness, failure to state a claim, exhaustion, timeliness, immunity, frivolousness, or nonjusticiable political question?" 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.
Humber filed voluntary petition and was adjudged bankrupt on August 31, 1932. On October 21, 1932, Bankers’ Trust Company, receiver of Humber, filed its petition to vacate the adjudication and dismiss the voluntary petition for want of jurisdiction. This petition recited the recovery in the state court by two creditors of a deficiency decree against Humber in 1927, on which execution was thereafter returned unsatisfied, and set up subsequent proceedings in the state court to reach and subject assets of the bankrupt, in the course of whieh said receiver was appointed in October, 1930. In substance the ground of the petition was that due to lapse of time, transfers of and liens on the bankrupt’s property were immune from attack in bankruptcy, and the subject-matter of the proceeding was in the possession and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state court. On November 15, 1932, after hearing, the district court vacated the adjudication of bankruptcy and by the same order dismissed Humber’s petition. The appeal which followed was allowed by the District Court only. In Michigan Garage & Accessory Co. v. Drury, 31 F.(2d) 434, this court dealt with such an appeal which set aside the adjudication and dismissed the voluntary petition and held that it would properly lie under section 25a of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U. S. C. § 48 (a), 11 USCA § 48 (a). The first headnote in Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U. S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116, 65 L. Ed. 297, reads:
“A petition to revise in matter of law under section 24b of the Bankruptcy Act [11 USCA § 47 (b)] is the proper remedy to review an order of an inferior court of bankruptcy vacating an adjudication and dismissing the bankruptcy proceeding for want of jurisdiction upon the motion of the bankrupt after the expiration of the time for appeal, he having neither contested the involuntary petition against him' nor appealed from the adjudication.”
The difference between the facts in that ease and the one at bar does not appear to justify a different ruling here. While petitions to revise have been abolished, and all review is now by appeal, section 24b, 11 US CA § 47 (b) still governs the review of proceedings in bankruptcy. This ease was appealable under section 24b (11U. S. C. § 47 (b), 11 USCA § 47 (b). The remedies by appeal are mutually exclusive. Matter of Loving, 224 U. S. 183, 32 S. Ct. 446, 56 L. Ed. 725; In re Mueller, 135 F. 711 (C. C. A. 6).
We,are consequently constrained to overrule the Drury Case, supra, and hold that the appeal in the present case was not properly taken and must be dismissed.

Question: Did the court refuse to rule on the merits of the appeal because of a threshhold issue other than lack of jurisdiction, standing, mootness, failure to state a claim, exhaustion, timeliness, immunity, frivolousness, or nonjusticiable political question?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: A