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:
MARTIN et al. v. RUTLAND COURT OWNERS, Inc.
No. 9644.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued May 14, 1948.
Decided Oct. 18, 1948.
Mr. Arthur G. Lambert, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. George L. Hart, Jr., of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Howard Boyd, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Edward B. Williams, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, PROCTOR, and GRONER, Circuit Judges.
WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge.
Mrs. Clotilde White leased to Chester Martin her individually owned unit in a cooperative apartment building in the District of Columbia. Martin and his family moved in on Saturday, August 18, 1945. When he came home from work the following Monday afternoon, he could not open the front door of his apartment. The janitor, whom he called, succeeded in opening it after a few minutes of effort. Binding or sticking at the bottom had caused the difficulty and Martin told the janitor the condition should be corrected.
As Mrs. Martin left the apartment Tuesday morning, she twice tried unsuccessfully to close the door from the outside. When she pulled a third time, the knob came off and she fell in the outer hall and broke her hip.
The Martins sued in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia to recover $60,000 from Mrs. White and from Rutland Court Owners, Inc., the corporation which held legal title to the building, issued certificates of ownership and right of occupancy to purchasers of apartments, and generally managed and operated the property. Mrs. White, being out of the country, was not served with process, so the litigation proceeded against the corporation alone.
It was alleged in the complaint that the front door of the apartment “was defective in that it could not be closed or opened without applying undue pressure and that there was difficulty in locking and unlocking the door and in turning the latch.” Negligence was charged -in two forms: first, in failing to repair after notice of a defective condition; second, in undertaking to repair but doing it so negligently as to cause the injury. The court declined to submit the first issue, holding it was not the defendant’s duty to make the repair. On the second issue the jury found for the defendant.
The plaintiff is here as appellant, seeking a reversal on the sole ground that the court erred in ruling the defendant had no duty to make the repair.
Appellee was not the landlord of the appellant, Mártin, and had no contraer tual relation with him. Assuming, without deciding, that the corporation owed him, as Mrs. White’s tenant, the same, duty it owed to her, we find no obligation upon the appellee to make repairs such as that involved here. In the contract between the appellee and Mrs. White, she agreed to “properly maintain, care for and improve” her own apartment. Appellee agreed only “to maintain and operate” the building for the use and benefit of all the cooperative owners. The District Court’s ruling was correct.
Affirmed.

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