opinion: PER CURIAM.
  This case was begun by appellant as plaintiff in the lower court, by a bill of complaint entitled “a Bill to Restrain Execution of ’Trustees’ Deed.” It was alleged in the bill that the plaintiff was the owner of certain real estate situate in the District of Columbia, which was subject to a deed of trust for $5,500, being a first lien, upon the property, held by defendant The American Workmen, a corporation, and that the property had been sold at trustees’ sale to defendant Humphries, under the deed of trust securing such loan, under circumstances which amounted to a fraud upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff prayed that the sale be set aside and the trustees bo restrained from conveying the property to Humphries, and for an injunction pendente lite to that effect.
  The cause was heard by the lower court upon the motion of plaintiff for an injunction pendente lite and defendants’ motion to dismiss the bill of complaint. The plaintiff’s motion was overruled, and the defendants’ motion was sustained. The bill of complaint accordingly was dismissed, and this appeal was taken by plaintiff.
  At the hearing of the case in this court the respective parties by their counsel stated in open court that the sale in question had been rescinded by the purchaser, Hum-phries, without objection of the defendants, because of the delay occasioned by this suit in procuring a deed for the property. .
  It therefore appears that this appeal has become moot, and it is hereby dismissed; the costs to be assessed in equal parts against plaintiff and defendant The American Workmen.
  Dismissed.
instruction: 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 court's ruling on an issue arising out of an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR, settlement conference, role of mediator or arbitrator, etc.) 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".