
    W. S. Furnish v. J. T. Robison, Commissioner of General Land Office.
    No. 2308.
    Decided June 4, 1913.
    Mandamus—Jurisdiction of Supreme Court.
    When, the answer of respondent in an action brought to obtain writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court against the head of a department of the State government raises an issue of fact, the case becomes one beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and must be dismissed. Wootan v. Kogan, 96 Texas, 434, followed. (P. 79.)
    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.
    
      S. S. Searcy, for relator.
    
      B. F. Looney, Attorney General, and G. B. Smedley, Assistant, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice BE 0WIST

delivered the opinion of the court.

■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.

It is therefore ordered that the case be dismissed.

Justice Hawkins did not sit in this case.'

Dismissed.  