
    Jeremiah Hinton vs. James M’Gavock.
    In Error.
    
    To overreach an elder grant, founded upon a junior entry, the calls of the elder entry must have been notorious at the date of the junior entry.
    That the beginning corner of the elder entry, was notorious at the date of the grant, founded upon the junior entry; will not deprive the latter, of the legal advantage, which is based upon an older grant.
    M’Gavock sued Hinton, in ejectment, in the Davidson circuit court. M’Gavock’s grant issued in 1808 — the grant to Prunell, under whom Hinton, the defendant below, claimed title, by a regular chain of conveyances, issued In 1793.
    The elder grant of Prunell, compelled M’Gavock to resort to his elder entry, No. 173, dated January 24th, 1784 in the following words: “James M’Gavock, assignee of Evan Baker, assignee of Hugh M’Gary, assignee of Thomas Hendricks, by the commissioner’s certificate, having first paid £15 17s. of the sum required by law, enters 640 acres of land adjoining Evan Baker, assignee of Samuel Conn, on the north; beginning at Samuel Conn’s beginning, and running west 320 poles, thence north 320 poles, thence east 320 poles, thence south 320 poles, to the beginning, for complement.”
    To sustain the legal advantage derived to Hinton, through the elder grant of Prunell, the entry upon which that grant is founded, was introduced, dated 14th June, 1784, No. 487. “Samuel Ewing, in right of his wife, Mary, enters a pre-emption of 640 acres of land', lying on the north side of Cumberland river, including a spring about a mile from the river, marked on a tree E. N.; beginning up the river, adjoining the lands of captain Daniel Williams, thence down the river for quantity.”
    Pursuing the directions of Ewing’s entry down the river, the surveyor was soon arrested by a connection of' claims, extending from the river north — first with James Shaw’s 640 acre pre-emption, founded on an older entry; bounded on the south by the river. Proceeding north, adjoining the claim of Shaw, is a tract of 357 acres, granted to Robert Nelson. On the trial, however, no entry for Nelson’s tract was introduced. Nelson’s claim is succeeded on the north by a 640 acre tract, granted to David M’Gavock, and finally the claim of the plaintiff below, James M’Gavock.-
    The foregoing block of surveys, presented to the survey- or of Ewing’s entry, a base line on their eastern boundary, running due north with inconsiderable offsets. The survey ofPrunell, was begun where Williams’sline strikes the river, running west to Shaw’s, thence north "with the eastern boundary of Shaw, Nelson, David M’Gavock, and including a small portion of the claim of James M’Gavock, which is the land in controversy; Prunell’s survey was extended north much beyond an oblong.
    The circuit judge charged the jury, “that the entry of Mary Ewing was not a special entry, for the land in dispute according to the testimony in the cause, considering the connection of adjoining claims; that, therefore, whether the call for the beginning corner of Evan Baker’s assignee, &c. in the plaintiff’s entry, was notorious or not, on the 14th of June, 1784, when the defendant’s entry was made, was not material to be inquired into, provided said beginning corner became notorious at any time before the plaintiff’s grant issued in 1793.”
    To which opinion of the court an exception was taken, after the jury had found for the plaintiff, and an appeal, in the nature of a writ of error, prosecuted to this court.
    
      Bell for appellant.
    
      W. E. Brown and Grundy for appellee.
   Catron, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. No proof was introduced to show, that the claim of Evan Baker, as-signee of Samuel Conn, was notorious at the time M’Ga-vock’s entry was made, on the 24th January, 1784; but it was proved, that about January, 1783, John Shelby made a survey, with a view to locate more precisely, Evan Baker’s entry, which entry was made in October, 1784. To affect the claim of Hinton, with the notoriety of M’Gavock’s entry, much pains was taken to prove that the beginning of Evan Baker, assignee of Conn, became notorious before the gran£ £0 prunell issued.

The entry of Ewing being special, both in its locative calls, and as connected with captain Williams’s land, held a priority over the entry of M’Gavock, if both entries cover the same land; both entries were surveyed adjoining older grants than the entry of Ewing, on which Prunell’s grant issued — in running out which, the surveyor began at I on the plat, ran to H, thence down the river to B, east to T M R Y X Q, and thence to the beginning; running north a considerable distance more than an oblong of 640 acres, including M’Gavock’s beginning corner, and a few acres of the south east corner of his entry, which is the land in dispute.

If the surveyor was authorized, when surveying Ewing’s entry, to include the part of M’Gavock’s entry which is included in Prunell’s grant, then the charge of the circuit judge is wrong. If not, it is unexceptionable. From H to I, and from 1 to Q, the surveyor was confined by older claims in surveying Ewing’s entry, from B to E, he was also confined.

Robert Nelson’s grant recites, that it was founded upon-an entry made in March 1784, and a survey made the 10th May, 1784. But the grant is the only evidence in the record, that there was such an entry; and hence it is contended, that for any thing appearing in the record, the land' covered by Nelson’s grant, was vacant to the time of issuing the grant in 1786. From M to N, the claim is older than Ewing’s entry. It is contended, that Prunell’s survey-should have included the land covered by the grant of Nelson, and not to have extended to that of James M’Gavock; and to this effect the circuit court charged the jury. For the powers and discretion of surveyors, in surveying entries, the court would refer to the cases of Kerr's lessee vs. Porter, 1 Tenn. Rep. 353; Carter and Stubblefield vs. Ward, 2 Tenn. Rep. 340, and Phillips' lessee vs. Robertson, 2 Tenn. Rep. 399.

We think the surveyor was well warranted to run out Ewing’s entry in the manner he did. He complied with all >the calls of the entry, beginning at the river, where Daniel Williams’s line intercepted it, down the river to Shaw’s east boundary, north with said line, then by set-oils west and north to D. M’Gavock’s land. The objection is, that he run over vacant land on the east end of.Nelson’s grant. Suppose this were true,did he notas well comply with the calls of the entry by running north as west, and lay the land in much better form?

Much more than this was done in making the elder survey of Carter, in the case of Carter and Stubblefield vs. W ard. The court believe, that the surveyor prudently and correctly surveyed Ewing’s entry; and that it is special for the land granted, that the circuit court ought so to have instructed the jury; and should, furthermore, have instructed, that Ewing’s entry, being a special one for the land in controversy, which could not be said of M’Gavock’s, for the want of notoriety of the beginning corner of Conn’s survey, at the date of Ewing’s entry; therefore, the latter had a priority over the former in obtaining a survey and grant, unless the entry of M’Gavock became notorious before the 14th of June, 1784, the date of Ewing’s entry.

Let the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial. 
      
       The propriety of attaching a diagram of the survey, to each case, upon the land titles of the country, has been a subject of mature consideration with the "Reporters.
      The difficulty of obtaining, in all cases, a survey at all, and in others, such as are entirely intelligible, together with a conviction, that the general principles established by each case, rather than a tedious, and in most instances, an unprofitable examination of connected surveys, will arrest the attention of the reader, have determined them to omit the diagrams; and^o obviate, so far as is possible, any difficulty on account of that omission, by observing much care, and spe» cialtyin the statement of each case. — Reporters*
     