Defendants assign error of the court in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and entering a judgment thereon. Defendants also assign error in granting to plaintiffs any relief for the rea *377 son that the defendants claim no part of lot 2, block 21, owned by the plaintiffs.

It will be noticed from the portion of the answer quoted that the defendants claim the two-foot strip as a portion of lot 1 but they do not allege that the strip is a part of lot 1. Defendants asserted title to the two-foot strip by prescription, and introduced some testimony, claiming that the same tended to show adverse possession of a portion of the strip in dispute, for a part of the time during the last ten years, prior to the commencement of this action.

It developed upon the trial, and is uncontroverted, that the lot 2 owned by plaintiffs and lot 1, owned by defendant Agnes Burge, was owned by the same person, or persons until August 27, 1912, and that the plaintiffs and defendant derived title to their respective lots by mesne conveyances from a common grantor. This action was begun May 27,1922. Prior to and until August 27, 1912, one Bennett owned both lots. Of course, he could not claim any part of either adversely in favor of himself. Therefore, the defendants failed to establish title by prescription. The statutory period of ten years for acquiring title by prescription could not have run before the commencement of this action. If the case had been submitted to the jury and they had returned a verdict for defendant it would have been the duty of the court, under the evidence, to set such verdict aside. The court properly directed a verdict in favor of plaintiffs.

The record indicates that the two lots having been in common ownership for a time, there is some question as to where the dividing line between them is. Defendants assert in their brief that the question as to who is the owner of this strip is left *378 unsettled by tbe judgment; that the verdict says the plaintiffs are the owners and entitled to the possession of lot 2, which no one disputes; that the question is, where is lot 2, or does it cover this two-foot strip of ground?

The plaintiffs introduced the testimony of W. S. Coates, county surveyor, of that county, who had been engaged in civil engineering in Tillamook County for thirteen or fourteen years. About one year before the commencement of' this action he surveyed the line between the two lots described, and again a short time before the trial' of the case he resurveyed the same line; that he started at the initial point of Thayer’s Addition^ which is 391 feet south of the southeast comer of the Edriek Thomas Donation Land Claim, and ran the line very carefully; that the second survey checked with the first, and corresponded with the various monuments established in the City of Tillamook, which had been there for a long time; that he marked the line between lots 1 and 2 by setting a three-quarter inch gas-pipe at the northwest comer of said lot 2 and indicated the line near the southwest corner by “a tack on the top of the chicken-house.” The engineer’s statement is corroborated by two chainmen who assisted him, one of whom was a civil engineer. Their testimony is not contradicted.

The defendants offered some testimony in regard to a survey, and asked some questions of a witness, in regard to a survey of the line between lots 1 and 2, to which an objection was sustained by the court. No testimony was tendered as answers to the interrogatories and no error is assigned in regard to the ruling. The judgment entered being questionable or indefinite as to the west line of lot 2, or the dividing line *379 between lots 1 and 2, in order that tbe judgment may be enforced, it is hereby directed that the judgment entered be corrected by describing the west line of said lot 2 in accordance with tbe survey made, and marked on tbe ground by Engineer "W. S. Coates: Art. VII, § 3c, Const, of Oregon.

After an examination of all tbe assignments of error, which are practically included in those mentioned, with the correction of the judgment directed, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as corrected. Affirmed.