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:
FARMERS BANK OF LOHMAN, MO., v. THOMPSON.
No. 12528.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Dec. 24, 1943.
Sam Bushman, of Jefferson City, Mo., for appellant.
sam W. James, Jr., of Jefferson City, Mo., for appellee.
Before STONE, THOMAS, and JOHN-SEN, Circuit Judges.
THOMAS, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court sustaining a petition to review an order of a Conciliation Commissioner and remanding the cause in a proceeding under § 75, sub. s, of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203, sub. s. See In re Thompson, D.C., 48 F.Supp. 557.
Both secured and unsecured claims were filed and allowed against the debtor and his estate. The debtor retained possession of his property during the three-year stay period and deposited in court each year pursuant to an order of the Commissioner $665 rental, aggregating $1,995. After payment of taxes and upkeep of the mortgaged property, there remained a balance of rentals in the amount of $1,597.58 undistributed.
At the end of the three-year period the debtor pursuant to an order of the Conciliation Commissioner, although objecting, paid into court the full amount of the reappraised value of his mortgaged property in the sum of $7,296.67, and the Commissioner entered an order turning over to him the mortgaged property free and clear of all encumbrances. The Commissioner ordered the distribution of the $7,-296.67 to the secured creditors, and they requested the confirmance of the order.
The Conciliation Commissioner then entered an order that the balance of rentals deposited by the debtor in the sum of $1,-597.58, less administrative expenses, be distributed to the unsecured creditors. The debtor alone objected to this order, and upon review the court held that the net rentals after payment of taxes, upkeep and costs of administration should have been applied on the principal of the secured debts, thus reducing by an equal amount the $7,296.67 which the debtor was required to pay into court to redeem his mortgaged property. The court accordingly entered judgment remanding the case to the Commissioner and in effect directing him to refund the net rentals to the debtor. The Farmers Bank of Lohman, an unsecured creditor, appeals from this judgment.
The judgment appealed from in this case was entered on December 4, 1942. Thereafter, on March 4, 1943, this court decided the case of Wilson v. Dewey, 8 Cir., 133 F.2d 962, involving the identical issue presented on this appeal. This court there held that no part of the rental payments made by a farmer-debtor after an adjudication in bankruptcy during the three-year period is deductible as “payments on principal” from the reappraised value of the mortgaged property which the debtor is required to pay under the Act to redeem from the mortgage. That decision is controlling in this case, and requires a reversal of the judgment appealed from.
The judgment is, therefore, reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to enter judgment and to proceed in accordance with this opinion.

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