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 appeal presents a single issue, namely, whether the District Court erred in affirming the order of the referee in bankruptcy directing the trustee to take possession of certain premises located in Sheboygan, Wis., scheduled by the bankrupt as belonging' to himself, and upon which he claimed exemption by virtue of the Wisconsin Statutes, section 272.20, relating to homestead. The record indicates that there was substantial evidence introduced tending to show that appellant had never adopted the premises in question as his homestead, having resided in Madison, Wis., where he was in business for over a year prior to the purchase of the property, and having lived in the home of his parents in a different town after he bought it. Such evidence would very well warrant the order of the referee denying the claim of homestead, and this court has no power to question the interpretation of the evidence upon which the finding was based. We are warranted in inferring that appellant has reached the same conclusion from the fact that he failed to appear at the argument of the cause.
Order 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: A