of this court 57 S. E. xiv provides that “the court will not read any affidavit in support of, or opposition to, any motion hereafter made to the court, unless reasonable notice in writing be given to the opposing party of the time and place of taking the same. ” In this case the notice required by that rule was not given, but the motion to dismiss Is made in a printed brief, filed but a few days before the case Is called for hearing In this court, and as a part of that brief the ex parte affidavit of the clerk, who himself, as he admits, certified the record, is alone relied on to support the motion. Therefore we are of opinion that the contention that this writ of error should be dismissed is wholly without merit.James Thompson, a nonresident of Virginia, who died Intestate in 1876, was the owner of the 150 acres of land, which, with the 270 standing trees thereon, form the subject of controversy in this suit, and descended at his death to his heirs at law. They conveyed one moiety thereof to Martha Graham, who with said heirs instituted the suitIt is too plain to admit of discussion, if plaintiff In error does not in fact Intend to admit as much, that the defendants In error established at the trial a good legal title to the land, and, of course, to the standing trees thereon, and had the right to recover the land, including the standing trees upon it, unless this right was lost by reason of a tax deed under which plaintiff in error claims, made by the clerk of the county court of Buchanan county to one S. M. B. Coulling, hearing date July 18, 1803, the sale of the land for the payment of the taxes due thereon for the year 1886 having been made February 21, 1888, and the plat of the land and certificate of survey ordered by the court recorded as required by law April 1, 1802.It appears on the land books of Buchanan county that this land was assessed for taxes in the name of “James T. Thompson” for 1884 and 1885, in the name of “Jane Thompson” for 1886 to 1800, inclusive; in the name of “Jane” or “James” Thompson for 1801, and in the name of S. M. B. Coulling and those claiming under him for the years 1802 to 1006, inclusive. It further appears in the certificate of the evidence that in the column of the land books of 1886 and 1887, headed “Remarks,” the following note appears: “notJames T.”that the parties agreed, and their counsel admitted, that the land assessed to the above-named parties was the identical land in controversy, and the same land assessed to “James Thompson” for 1884 and 1885. It Is not claimed that the taxes were paid on the land for 1886, the year for which it was sold for taxes and bought by Coulling, nor that the land was ever assessed against James Thompson or those claiming under him other than as shown by the certificate made from the land books above referred to.It will be readily observed, therefore, that the defense set up by plaintiff in error at the trial was adversary possession, under color of title, for the statutory period of 10 years; the contention being that the tax deed toCoulling afforded him and those claiming under him color of title which by lapse of time ripened Into a perfect title before this suit was brought, and that, so far as plaintiff in error was concerned, if recovery by the plaintiffs defendants in error here of the land itself was barred, they were also barred of a recovery of the 270 standing trees thereon claimed by plaintiff in error; but the learned judge below instructed the Jury that the tax deed in question passed no title for the land in the declaration described, and this ruling is made the basis of plaintiff in error’s first assignment of error.The case of Stevenson v. Henkle, 100 Va. 505, 42 S. E. 672, involved a mistake In the name of the landowner whose lands were sold for delinquent taxes, similar to the case In judgment, and the opinion of the court says: “The underlying principle In such cases Is that a person whose property is liable to assessment for taxes shall not be permitted to evade payment of his just proportion of the public burdens by any errors, omissions, or
