
    Argued and submitted September 18,
    judgment modified to correct description of prescriptive easement and affirmed as modified October 8,
    reconsideration denied November 21,
    petition for review denied December 16, 1986 (302 Or 460)
    YOUNG et ux, Respondents, v. HASSLER et ux, Appellants.
    
    (83-1055-E; CA A37096)
    725 P2d 1299
    Donald F. Myrick, Grants Pass, argued the cause for appellants. On the briefs were Donald H. Coulter, and Myrick, Coulter, Seagraves, Myrick & Adams, Grants Pass.
    Wally P. Martin, Grants Pass, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents.
    Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs claim a prescriptive right to use an easement along the west side of defendants’ property. On de novo review, we affirm generally the trial court’s judgment for plaintiffs. The parties agree that the language in the judgment saying that the “easement shall proceed from the Southerly boundary of Rogue River Loop Highway to the Southwesterly corner of Plaintiffs’ premises” (emphasis supplied) is erroneous and that “Southwesterly” should read “Southeasterly.” The judgment is hereby amended accordingly.

Judgment modified as described in the preceding paragraph and affirmed as modified.  