Color of title will not extend beyond the description contained in the grant. Bradley v. Shelton, 189 Ga. 696 (4) ( 7 S.E.2d 261). However, actual adverse possession for a period of 20 years, evidenced by inclosure, cultivation, or any use and occupation so notorious as to attract the attention of every adverse claimant, and so exclusive as to prevent actual occupation by another, will give title by prescription.

"The prescriptive period that would be applicable to establish presumption of intention to abandon an easement would be a minimum of twenty years, as the seven year adverse possession under color of title would not apply, since the rule is that possession to ripen under color of title extends only to the boundary of the instrument relied on for color of title, and in this case, the defendant would be limited by the alley as the western boundary and extent of any possession he could have under color of title." See Bradley v. Shelton, 189 Ga. 696, 697 (3) ( 7 S.E.2d 261), and Brown v. Hester, 169 Ga. 410 (1) ( 150 S.E. 556). Therefore, it is the judgment of this court that the issues in this case were correctly decided in the trial court and its judgment must be affirmed.

There is other evidence substantiating the fact of no acquiescence or agreement by the plaintiff thereafter until the plaintiff commenced its action in 1965. See, in connection with the above, Bradley v. Shelton, 189 Ga. 696 ( 7 S.E.2d 261); Robertson v. Abernathy, 192 Ga. 694 ( 16 S.E.2d 584); Horn v. Preston, 217 Ga. 165 ( 121 S.E.2d 775). There being no evidence to create an issue of fact for jury determination in support of any claim or defense of adverse possession by either of the defendants, the trial judge erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the plaintiff or to grant judgment for the plaintiff notwithstanding a mistrial.

Gornto v. Wilson, 141 Ga. 597 (2) ( 81 S.E. 860); Hart v. Carter, 150 Ga. 289 ( 103 S.E. 457); Barfield v. Birrick, 151 Ga. 618 (2) 108 S.E. 43); Farr v. Woolfolk, 118 Ga. 277 (2) ( 45 S.E. 230); Osteen v. Wynn, 131 Ga. 209 (3, 4) ( 62 S.E. 37, 127 Am. St. Rep. 212); Brown v. Hester, [ 169 Ga. 410, 150 S.E. 556]." Bradleyv. Shelton, 189 Ga. 696 (4) ( 7 S.E.2d 261). There is no evidence in the present case of an oral agreement between the parties, accompanied by possession, nor is there any evidence of acquiescence for seven years by acts and declarations of the adjoining owners. The Clays had not owned their lot for seven years when the suit was filed, and their predecessor in title did not testify.

demanded a finding that the predecessors in title abided by the agreed line, and continued to use the driveway as a jointly owned driveway; that each made repairs thereon; that their successors in title (including the defendant after he purchased his property and entered into possession in June, 1955) continued to recognize the driveway as a jointly owned driveway, until a survey was made by a surveyor employed by the defendant in April, 1958. "An unascertained or disputed boundary line between coterminous proprietors may be established, (1) by oral agreement, if the agreement be accompanied by actual possession to the agreed line, or is otherwise duly executed; or (2) by acquiescence for seven years by the acts or declarations of the owners of adjoining land, as provided in the Civil Code, § 3247 [now § 85-1602]." Osteen v. Wynn, 131 Ga. 209 (3) ( 62 S.E. 37, 127 Am. St. Rep. 212); Childers v. Dedman, 157 Ga. 632, 633 ( 122 S.E. 45); Brown v. Hester. 169 Ga. 410 (2) ( 150 S.E. 556); Bradley v. Shelton, 189 Ga. 696 (4) ( 7 S.E.2d 261); McGill v. Dowman, 195 Ga. 357, 365 (2) ( 24 S.E.2d 195); Smith v. Lanier, 199 Ga. 255, 262 ( 34 S.E.2d 91); Croft v. Beverly, 202 Ga. 210 ( 43 S.E.2d 93); Hickox v. Griffin, 205 Ga. 859, 862 ( 55 S.E.2d 351); Warwick v. Ocean Pond Fishing Club, 206 Ga. 680 ( 58 S.E.2d 383); Bennett v. Perry, 207 Ga. 331 (2) ( 61 S.E.2d 501); Brunswick Pulp Paper Co. v. Wilson, 211 Ga. 862 ( 89 S.E.2d 476). 3. The final judgment entered upon the verdict of the jury is not specified as material to the errors complained of, nor is it made a part of the record in the case.

Lockwood v. Daniel, 193 Ga. 122 ( 17 S.E.2d 542). And a line established by either one of these two methods is binding on the coterminous proprietors and their grantees. Bradley v. Shelton, 189 Ga. 696 ( 7 S.E.2d 261). 3. This case presents a boundary-line controversy between adjacent owners.

When a boundary line is established by consent, the coterminous proprietors hold up to it by virtue of their title deeds, and not by virtue of a parol transfer." See also Bradley v. Shelton, 189 Ga. 696 ( 7 S.E.2d 261); McNeal v. Carter, 191 Ga. 441 ( 12 S.E.2d 332); Robertson v. Abernathy, 192 Ga. 694 ( 16 S.E.2d 584); Shahan v. Watkins, 194 Ga. 164 ( 21 S.E.2d 58); Smith v. Lanier, 199 Ga. 255 ( 34 S.E.2d 91). In the instant case, all the elements necessary to establish a dividing line by parol agreement were present. The location of the dividing line was uncertain and unascertained according to the testimony, and as will readily appear from a mere reading of the two deeds.

Counsel for the defendant in error contend that there need be no dispute or uncertainty, and rely upon Farr v. Woolfolk, 118 Ga. 277 ( 45 S.E. 230), Tietjen v. Dobson, 170 Ga. 123 ( 152 S.E. 222), Smith v. Lanier, 199 Ga. 255 ( 34 S.E.2d 91), and Yarbrough v. Stuckey, 39 Ga. App. 265 ( 147 S.E. 160), to sustain that position. However, counsel for the plaintiff in error, taking the opposite position, rely upon Bradley v. Shelton, 189 Ga. 696 ( 7 S.E.2d 261), Veal v. Barber, supra; Osteen v. Wynn, 131 Ga. 209 ( 62 S.E. 37), Gornto v. Wilson, 141 Ga. 597 ( 81 S.E. 860), and O'Neal v. Ward, 148 Ga. 62 ( 95 S.E. 709). Considering the cases, in the order above named, upon which counsel for the defendant in error rely, we find that in Farr v. Woolfolk, supra, the decision is concurred in by only five Justices. It did not involve acquiescence, but did involve an agreement between the parties as to the line, and the reversal by the court was upon a charge to the effect that, if the owners agreed upon a line and one party was in possession up to that line for a period of seven years, he would have title.

Gornto v. Wilson, 141 Ga. 597 (2) ( 81 S.E. 860); Hart v. Carter, 150 Ga. 289 ( 103 S.E. 457); Barfield v. Birrick, 151 Ga. 618 (2) ( 108 S.E. 43); Farr v. Woolfolk, 118 Ga. 277 (2) ( 45 S.E. 230); Osteen v. Wynn, 131 Ga. 209 (3,4) ( 62 S.E. 37, 127 Am. St. R. 212); Brown v. Hester, [ 169 Ga. 410 ( 150 S.E. 556)]." Bradley v. Shelton, 189 Ga. 696 (4) ( 7 S.E.2d 261). The evidence demanded the verdict returned by the jury in favor of the defendants.

An unascertained or disputed boundary line between coterminous proprietors may be established by oral agreement, if the agreement be accompanied by actual possession to the agreed line, or is otherwise duly executed. Williams v. Prather, 188 Ga. 545 (1) ( 4 S.E.2d 140); Bradley v. Shelton, 189 Ga. 696 (4a) ( 7 S.E.2d 261); Lockwood v. Daniel, 193 Ga. 122 (1) ( 17 S.E.2d 542); McGill v. Dowman, 195 Ga. 357, 365 (2) ( 24 S.E.2d 195); Palmer v. Hinson, 201 Ga. 654 (1) ( 40 S.E.2d 526); Allen v. Smith, 202 Ga. 363 ( 43 S.E.2d 150). In the present case, the dispute arose between the petitioner and the defendant after the common grantor had disposed of the entire tract, and had therefore ceased to be a coterminous landowner.