
    Beckmann vs. Henn.
    In an action for a breach of the covenant of seizin, the burden is upon the defendant to show his title, and not upon the plaintiff to show the want of it.
    Where the plaintiff in such an action undertook to prove a breach of the covenant, and all the evidence offered by him was ruled out, it was error for the court to non-suit him upon the motion of the defendant, who had not made proof of his title.
    EBBOB to the Circuit Court for Ozaukee County.
    
      Hugh Gunning, for plaintiff in error.
    
      A. M. Blair, for defendant in error.
   By the Court,

DixON, C. J.

Action by the plaintiff in error against the defendant for a breach of the covenant of seizin contained in a deed from tbe latter to tbe former. Upon tbe trial, several exceptions were taken, none of wbicb need be noticed except that of tbe plaintiff to tbe judgment of non-suit. Tbe plaintiff, supposing it to be necessary for bim to prove tbe breach, offered a transcript from tbe land office and two deeds in evidence, all of wbicb were rejected. Tbe defendant then moved a nonsuit, wbicb was granted, and to wbicb tbe plaintiff excepted. It was error thus to nonsuit tbe plaintiff! Tbe burden was upon tbe defendant to show his title, and not upon tbe plaintiff to show tbe want of it by proving the negative. Mecklem v. Blake, 16 Wis., 102.

• Judgment reversed, and a new trial awarded.  