Original application by Furnish for writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court against Eobison as Land Commissioner. Eelator based his right upon a judgment recovering the land from an adverse claimant to whom it had been awarded as purchaser after relator’s purchase had been declared forfeited for failure to comply with the law as to residence.. This judgment the answer of respondent alleged to have been obtained by collusion.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1937
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶2
■Eelator seeks a writ of mandamus to the respondent requiring him to reinstate a purchase of school land which had been awarded to relator and thereafter declared forfeited. Eespondent answered, setting up facts which would defeat the relator’s right. This presents a case involving disputed issues of fact, which this court can not try. Wooten v. Rogan, 96 Texas, 434.
¶3
It is therefore ordered that the case be dismissed.
