
    M’Gavock vs. Shannon.
    An enterer who does not have his entry surveyed within twelve months, the time limited for surveys, does not forfeit all his right; it is not void, but is good against all enterers who could have their entries surveyed in a square or oblong, from their beginning corner upon vacant land, and such prior enterer will be entitled to a grant.
    An enterer, under our acts of Assembly, cannot enter land otherwise than by an oblong or square, if there be vacant land sufficient; and if he does enter differently, it is the duty of the surveyor to survey it in a square or oblong.
    The following facts are agreed by the plaintiff and defendant in this cause.
    1. That on the twenty-second day of August, 1822, the caveator made his entry in the following words and figures: “No. 21,921, David M Gavock and Joseph Philips, by virtue of certificates No. 3331, No. 3680 and No. 3692, all issued by the register of West Tennessee, enters fifty-five acres of land in Davidson county, on the Clay Lick Fork of White’s creek, beginning on the northern boundary of a survey of sixty three acres, in the name of James Bradley, and with the lines of said survey west and south, thence up the Clay Lick Fork, west and north alternately, to the south east corner of a ten acre tract granted to John Stump, and with the lines thereof north-west and south, thence west to a point opposite the south-east corner of a twenty acre entry in the name of Levi Norman’s heirs, thence north, thence east and north with the lines of the two entries in the name of the said Norman’s heirs, (the latter entry of Norman’s heirs'for thirty-one acres,) thence eastwardly and south to the beginning. August 22, 1822. D. M’Gavock, seal.”
    A true copy of entry No. 21,921, in my office, 22d May, 1828. Jno. C. M’Lemore, P. S. 1st Dis.
    2. That on the twenty-fourth day of August, 1822, the caveator’s entry was surveyed by J. Scott, a legally authorized surveyor, as set forth in the caveat.
    3. That caveator’s survey covers the land claimed by the caveatee under his entry set forth in caveat.
    4. That caveator’s survey substantially corresponds with the calls of his entry.
    5. That on the 18th day of August, 1821, caveatee made an entry such as set forth in the caveat.
    6. That the caveatee did not procure or have his said entry surveyed at any time before the 22d day of August, 1822, when caveator’s entry was made.
    7. That the entry of caveator by its calls, does cover the land described in caveatee’s entry.
    8. Thatt he defendant, the caveatee, on the 18th day of August, 1821, made his entry in the following words and figures:
    Samuel Shannon, ten acres of land entered on the 18th August, 1821, by virtue of a warrant No. 4272, and entry No. 21,623, lying on the Clay Lick Fork of White’s creek, and in the county of Davidson, beginning on the north boundary line of a ten acre tract, originally entered by said Shannon, running north and west for complement.
    9. 18th October, 1822, the defendant’s entry was sur-surveyed by J. Scott, a legally authorized surveyor, and recorded in the principal surveyor’s office on the 20th of October, 1822, as set out in the caveat.
    10. That the defendant’s survey corresponds with the calls of his entry..
    
      
    
    State of Tennessee, )
    Davidson county. $ Agreeably to an order of the honorable circuit court of said county, appointing me surveyor to survey the land in dispute between David M’Gavock, plaintiff, and Samuel Shannon, defendant, I have proceeded and went on the premises, and at the request of said Shannon, have run the lines of a fifty-five acre tract, in the name of David M’Gavock and Joseph Philips, agreeably to a plat and certificate which I received from the clerk of said court, which is represented by the black ruled lines, and contains fifty-eight and three-fourth acres and four square poles. Also have as-fcertained the corners and lines of said Shannon s ten acre tract, which is represented by the dotted lines, and contains eleven acres and thirty-eight square poles. Also, at the request of said Shannon, have represented fifty five acres of land by the dotted lines, which is an extreme oblong west from said M’Gavock’s beginning. Surveyed May 21st, 1828. Sami. Weakley, S. D. C.
    All the land in the plat included in the dotted lines, was vacant when M’Gavock made his entry, beginning at the hand, and north and east was vacant for more than 100 acres, and south except Bradley’s entry. The oblong in the dotted lines would contain as much good land as the survey made by M’Gavock. Shannon made his improvement, and had a tanyard before M’Gavock made his entry; M’Gavock’s survey conforms to his entry; in running south, survey stops at the first ridge on Bradley’s west boundary; if he had run south the whole length of Bradley’s west boundary, then west opposite Stump’s south east corner, he would have included as good land and as much level land, as the survey now does, and the land would have been on Clay Lick Fork. The hills are not natural boundaries. It is easier to go from one part of M’Gavock’s survey as made, to another, than to go from one part to another of the survey according to the dotted lines; here hills will be crossed from one to two hundred feet high, but they may be rode and walked over with common convenience, some more difficult, some more easy. All the vacant land around M’Gavock’s survey has since been appropriated under the twelve and a half cent law, and some under the cent law; the hills are all well timbered, and he has often surveyed much worse hills.
    Upon this case, the circuit court adjudged the land to the caveatee, Shannon, and dismissed the caveat of M’-Gavock; from which decision M’Gavock appealed in error to this court.
    
      Gibbs, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Thompson and G. S. Yerger, for defendant in error.
   Peck, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

On the facts agreed in this case, the question arises, whether M’Gavock could survey his land corresponding to the black lines, although those lines conform to the entry; while the parts adjoining his beginning and to the west of his third line as run, remained vacant and unappropriated. Both Shannon and M’Gavock were purchasers from the State. Shannon, though he did not survey his entry in the time limited, did not forfeit all right. The act of 1823, ch. 35, sec. 8 and 9, was passed as well to give time to previous enterers, whose claims had not been surveyed, as to hasten surveys in future: no one will pretend that the survey after the time had expired, would not authorize a grant, and that grant be good against the State. Acts of 1825, ch. 16; 1823, ch. 35, sec. 8. Still, for continued laches, Shannon’s right might have been lost, though, by the aid of subsequent acts, has not been.' This preliminary question it is deemed proper to discuss; because, if Shannon had lost all right, it might be questioned whether he could call in contest in this caveat, the entry and survey of M’Gavock. But the whole .policy of our laws having for their object the satisfaction of claims once well founded, 'is evinced in the number of statutes prolonging the time within which surveys may be made, and reviving claims forfeited by neglect. Shannon therefore must be taken as not absolutely postponed by reason of the time for making his survey having elapsed; and the rights the law gives him are, notwithstanding lapse of time, such as enable him to contest the rights of M’Gavock under his survey, made subsequent to the survey of Shannon, and in the form made.

This narrows the case to the question, how shall M’-Gavock make his survey under his entry? That he has conformed to his entry, is agreed. But a single glance at the diagram, will show-that whatever we may say of the entry, the survey is against law, so long as the triangles E. andF. remain vacant. Sec. 28, act 1S19, ch. 1. The right to enter is one thing, and the duty of the surveyor another. The law to him is directory. Where not restrained by lines of elder claims, or by natural boundaries, the survey must be in a square or oblong, and run to the cardinal points; and these rules are not to be departed from, unless particular circumstances require it. Acts of 1819, ch. 1, sec. 28; 1824, ch. 22, sec. 1, 12. These directions of the acts have been departed from, without circumstances to justify it. The surveyor should have controlled the en-terer where limited in the duty assigned him; conforming to the first calls of the entry of M’Gavock, he should have surveyed as the law required, disregarding such calls, as upon experiment in making the survey, were found unreasonable and impossible to be complied with. If this had been done, Shannon would nothave been included or molested.

The law in regard to entries, as well as in relation to grants, delights rather in the maintenance of them, than that they should perish; here, if the law had been followed, both entries could have stood and become effectual to vest a legal title; both enterers would have-had what the law intended to give. The mode of reaching Shannon in the survey of M’Gavock, was an injury both to the State and to the first enterer. It is done in violation of the express words of the act of 1829, ch. 1, sec. 28. Shannon, being clothed with rights which he might have pursued, may well resist this caveat in a contest with him having ho legal right to the land in controversy; and his power to resist becomes the stronger in a case where M’Gavock violates the law and is the actor. The judgment given below was therefore proper, and is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  