
    Vaughn and Brown vs. Hatfield.
    By our acts of assembly limiting the timo within which surveys shall be made, to twelve months, tho entry becomes void as to subsequent enter-ers of the samo land, if not surveyed within the time limited.
    If there bo no subsequent enterer, and tho entry is surveyed in pursuance of its calls, and a grant issue thereon, it will relato to tho entry, although the year may liavo expired.
    If in surveying an older entry, its calls are departed from so that it fa made to interfere with a junior entry, the survey is void, so far as it interferes, although the junior enterer may not have had his entry surveyed within a year.
    A younger entry with a prior survey, though tho survey was not made within twelvo months from the time of the entry, will bo preferred to an elder entry upon which no survey was mado until after tho survey on tho younger entry.
    This was a caveat filed by Hatfield to prevent the Issuance of a grant upon the entry and survey of Vaughn and Brown. The facts of this case, as found by the jury upon the issues submitted to them, areas follows: The entry of Hatfield, the caveator, for 100 acres, was made the 17th December, 1826, and the survey made thereon 23d January, 1828. The entry of Brown and Vaughn, the caveatees, for two hundred acres, was made 4th February, 1826, and was surveyed 2d June, 1829. The jury also found, that the caveatees did not survey their entry for two hundred acres, within twelve months from the making thereof, and that the caveator made his entry before the expiration of twelve months from the time of the caveatee’s entry. The jury also found, that tho caveator in making his survey, pursued his entry. The jury found that the survey of the caveatee’s entry interfered with the survey of the caveator sixty and a half acres, and that the caveatees in making their survey did not pursue their entry. The circuit court pronounced the survey of the caveatees void for sixty and a half acres, the interference, and gave judgment in favor of the caveator, from which judgment the caveatees appealed in the nature of a writ of error to this court.
    
      G. W. Churchwell, for plaintiff in error.
    
      W. C. JWynalt, for defendant in error.
   Peck, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

By the act limiting the time within which surveys shall be made, the entry becomes void, as to subsequent enter-ers of the same land, if not surveyed within one year. But this act by construction only makes the entry void in favor of a subsequent enterer. If surveyed in pursuance of the entry, and a grant issue, it will relate to the entry, even though the year may have expired, there being no subsequent enterer. Then the question in this case is, did the enterer of the one hundred acres pursue his entry in making his survey? The jury find he did. He had, it is true, the youngest entry but eldest survey, yet his right is perfect under his entry and survey, the cave-atees riot having entered after the expiration of the year. Does the survey of two hundred acres interfere?' The jury find it does sixty and a half acres, and that the survey does not pursue the entry of the caveatees. This is conclusive of the case. The survey is void so far as it interferes, and the extent of the interference is sufficiently proved; for as the caveatees have abandoned their entry in making their suiVey, the caveator cannot bo prejudiced, who has entry and survey correspondent therewith. Wo are of opinion that the circuit court did right, and affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.  