
    KENNEDY AND GAINES’S HEIRS vs. PAYNE AND MAJORS.
    May 10th.
    
    If the caiisofan «ntrydonotcer-tamly deter mine the form in which a lur. vev thereon the furveyought tobeinfiquaie
    ’ ON the 3rd day of February, 1781, Stephen Trigg had a survey made for 900 acres, on a treasury warrant —^jj- was run to the cardinal points, and its western boun- . , n ⅛ / d&ry WHS 260 poies lotlg*
    , On the 18th day of June, 1782, John Cobb entered gooO acres of land on a treasury warrant, “ to adjoin 5. Trigg’s survey of 900 acres, lying* on the waters of Narnmond’s creek, on the west side, to begin at his south west corner, and running with the said line north so far that lines at right angles west will give the quan-tlty.”
    On the 3rd of August, 1782, John Hoomes entered “ 10,000 acres' of land, lying on the waters ofHam-inond’s creek and Benson’s creek, adjoining Cobb’s entry of 3000 acres on Hammond’s creek, on the west and north, and extend west and north over on the waters of Benson’s creek for quantity, excluding all former entries and lands unfit for cultivation.”
    The appellants were defendants below, and relied on their elder patent. The appellees were complainants ‘there, and claimed under Hoomes’s entry. The causes had been commenced in the Franklin district court, and Was by that court adjtmrned to the general court. On the hearing, the general court decided that the entry of John Cobb for 3000 ought to be surveyed in the following manner, to wit: “ Beginning at the south-west of S. Trigg’s survey of 900 acres, thence with his line north, and passing his corner so far that lines running from the base at right angles will give precisely the quantity of 3000 acres in a square.. And that the entry of John Hoomes for 10,000 ought to be surveyed to adjoin the said Cobb’s entry, when laid dawn as aforesaid, on the west and north, and extending west arid north so. as to inelude the precise quantity of 10,000, without regard to former entries, lands unfit for cultivation, or any surplus which may be now included in the survey of said-Hoomes.”
    An appeal being taken, it was assigned for error “ That the inferior court erred in the construction which they have given by their decree to the entry of John. Cobb, in directing that the survey tq be made thereon should extend north beyond the corner of Trigg’s 900 acres survey, so far as to include the quantity in a square. The said survey should have been exterided north, no farther than Trigg’s most northwardly corner.”1-
   The Opinion of The Court was as followsIt is only necessary to consider the first error which is alleged; and were this the first suit in which the point had been decided, for its extensive importance, it would deserve a very particular investigation : but at, an early day it was settled by the late supreme court for the district of Kentucky, in the case Smith vs. Grimes , and that de-cisión has been sanctioned and pursued by this court, in the cases Kenton vs. M'Connell , Cleland vs. Thorp , and several others. In the present suit, the general court has decided the point in strict conformity to the cases which have been mentioned, and probably it was guided by them : to which ought to be added, that it may be presumed that a number of entries for land' have been surveyed, and disputes compromised, con-formably to those precedents. Indeed, it seems that those decisions necessarily resulted from the general doctrine, which has long been embraced, by the courts of this country, that if the calls of an entry do not certainly determine the form in which a survey thereon should be 3g\ade, the survey ought to be- a square, that being the ■tOBSt rational construction the entry can, receive, .and tfys least injurious to other locators.

Decree affirmed. 
      
      
         Hughes 18.
     
      
       Hughes 169.
     
      
       Hughes 101.
     
      
      
         Moore vs Harris, &c July 1801, Pr. Dec. 26, S. P.
     
      
       See remarks on this cafe m the cafe of Key vs. Matfon, poft.
      
     