Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

14 Tenn. 446

Crisp v. Kimble

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1834

Tennessee Supreme Court · decided 1834-05-15

By virtue of the act of 1832, Kimble, as an occupant, was entitled to a preference of entry of his occupant claim. On the 2Sth of June, 1833, he tendered to the surveyor general proof of occupancy, a survey, warrant, and location, which the surveyor refused to receive, because he had previously received a location and warrant, and had entered the land for the benefit of Tobias Gibson and Josiah Baugh, on the 2d day of February, 1S33, which entry he would not vacate.

Decided 1834-05-15

Green, J.

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2By the act of 1829, ch, 22, sec. 7, it is provided, that if any entry shall he made on any occupant claim not laid down upon the general plan of the district, without the consent of the said occupant in writing, if such entry includes the occupant’s improvement therein, it shall he null and void, so far as it interferes with said occupant claim.

¶3It is insisted by the plaintiff in error, that this law makes the entry, which may have been made on an occupant claim void, only so far as it includes the improvement of the occupant. That could not have been the meaning of the legislature. The occupant, as in this case, may have no improvement, save his house and shop. If the argument for the plaintiff in error be correct, then the entry would be valid for all the land around the buildings and so render the buildings themselves of no use. *448But the act says such entry shall be void so far as it interferes with the occupant claim. This extends to the whole land which by Jaw the occupant may enter. The judgment will therefore be affirmed.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/14/tenn/446 · .json · Public domain