What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?" 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". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless".

Opinion:
In re HIGHLAND SILK CO., Inc. COPE v. SELTZER.
No. 4185.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
May 22, 1930.
See, also, 41 F.(2d)'404,
Sidney E. Smith, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Webster S. Aehey, of Doylestown, Pa., for appellant.
Sigmund H. Steinberg, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
After the Highland Silk Company was adjudged bankrupt, a contest arose between its trustee and a mortgagee of its plant, as to whether the silk-manufacturing machinery used therein passed to the trustee as personalty or was covered by a mortgage on the plant held by him. By agreement the machinery was sold, the price substituted therefor, and the matter referred to the referee. He took all the proof offered by the parties, and held the mortgagee was entitled to the fund. On certificate, the court, in an opinion reversing the referee, In re Highland Silk Co. (D. C.) 41 F.(2d) 404, said: “In this ease, the referee apparently was of the opinion that, if the machinery which is the subject of the controversy, was indispensable in carrying on the business of the particular factory in which it was located, it necessarily became a part" of the realty. While some of the eases in dealing with the question of machines as fixtures used rather broad language, a careful review of all the Pennsylvania decisions upon the subject makes it clear that the primary and controlling consideration with regard to machinery in manufacturing plants is the same as in the case of any other kind of chattel, namely, the intention of the owner in placing it upon the real estate.”
It further said: “The referee has made no finding upon the essential question of intention, and apparently given no adequate consideration * * * upon it,” and thereupon re-referred the case “to the referee for further consideration and for findings in accordance with this opinion.”
From the record it appears that on the original hearing the mortgagee’s offer of testimony “to substantiate the allegation and contention that the machinery is a fixture and part of the realty and it was placed with that intention by the bankrupt,” was allowed and such testimony as the mortgagee produced was received. On the re-reference hearing, the mortgagee sought to introduce further testimony, but the referee held “that further testimony would be improper at this time unless we weré to be shown that it was entirely a new matter that for some reason had not been covered previously.” We are of opinion that there was no error in the referee so ruling. The court’s order did not instruct him to take further testimony. The mortgagee had, as we have noted, at the pri- or hearing been allowed to produce testimony on the question of intent. The court has in effect construed the scope of its own order by approving the referee’s action. This leaves for consideration the question whether the referee, on the testimony before him, erred in his finding “that it was not the intention of the parties at the time the mortgage was created, that the machinery be subject to the lien of the mortgage.”
Without entering into details, we think the proofs and the question involved may fairly be stated as follows: Silk-making machinery, bought on a recorded conditional sales contract, was installed in an ordinary factory loft building, suitable, aud previously used, for other light manufacturing purposes. After the buyer subsequently acquired title to the building and land, but before the conditional sales contract money was paid, a mortgage on “all that certain mill and tract of land,” without mention of the silk machinery, was given. The machinery was easily severable without injury to the fealty and “was of a character which was subject to rapid obsolescence and hence subject to fairly . frequent replacement.” Under such facts and findings, we are of opinion no error was committed in awarding the fund to the trustee.

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?

Choices:
No
Yes
Yes, but error was harmless
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 4