
    CARTRIGHT vs. COLLIER.
    If an entry, ' been made but 15 days, and ther are not ⅛⅛ notoriety j entry is vague.
    Anentry call. ¡ug ⅛. a ¡etlle_ mqit and preemption which have been fur-veyedi5 days, may be fup-ported by flawing the pofition of the fetUement and preemption according to entry, & attaching the ptry to them.
    
      CARTRIGHT filed his billin chancery in the court of quarter sessions of Madison, against Collier ; claiming the land in question, by virtue of an entry made qn the 19th day of February 1783, for 600 acres; as follows : “ Beginning at William Hays’s north-east corner of his settlement and pre-emption, on Boone’s fork of Silver creek, and to extend south, along the said Hays’s Wardly side, and east for quantity.” TT J , , , ^ J . ,
    TT , , , , Hays s settlement and pre-emption, were surveyed on t}ie 4th day of February 1783. The pre-emption entry called to adjoin the settlement, and also Luttrell’s settle,? ment. Luttrell’s and Hays’s settlement entries called for objects which were laid down on the connected plat, hut there was no attempt to prove their notoriety.
    The inferior court gaye a decree against the complainant. From that decree he took an appeal. The cause was argued several times, some years since, by Rowan for the appellant, and Clay for the appellee.
   ThR Court now delivered the following opinion : — r In this case, it has been attempted to Sustain the entries of the appellant, on the ground that William Hays’s settlement and pre-emption, which they call to adjoin, had been surveyed (about fifteen days) before the entries were made. His entries do not call for the surveys made on the settlement and pre-emption ; and if they did, the surveys having been so recently made, and not being proved to possess any kind of notoriety, the cases of Key vs. Matson, and Moore vs. Whitledge, in this court, are in point against the appellant.

The court are of opinion, that a construction might reasonably have been given to the appellant’s entries, which would have saved a considerable part of the land i.n contest, if Hays’s settlement and pre-emption and Lut-trell’s settlement,had been properly established by proof; but there seems to the court to be a total defect of proof, both as to the identity and notoriety of the material objects of description and location, called for in those entries. Upon the whole, it is considered by this court, that there is no error in the decree of the court below, and that the same be affirmed, with costs, &c. 
      
       See thefe cafes anti yp, 89, and the, cafes there cited.
     