“ Having previously considered this case (82 Kan. 216, 107 Pac. 559; 87 Kan. 842, 126 Pac. 1093) the court awarded relief because of the violation of a contract of employment to procure the sale of real estate. 96 Kan. 109, 150 Pac. 559.
The case is here in reliance upon a federal question based upon the assumption that the authority to sell included land belonging to the United States covered by an inchoate homestead entry. But the court below expressly found that such land was not included in the contract, hence the sole basis for the asserted federal question disappears. ”