of such other person. Goldsmith v. American Paper Collar Co. 2 FED. REP. 239. On the same principle such other person is neither a proper nor a necessary party to be joined with the real party in interest, as plaintiff, when such other person has no interest in the patent, and when the suit is not for the legal benefit in any way of such other person. Under rule 90 it is inconsistent with the local circumstances of this district to require the wife in this case to join her husband with her. The rule of joining husband with wife in suits to recover her personal property was founded upon the principle of unity of existence and interest between husband and wife, in law, and the right of the husband in the 'wife's personal property, and the care exercised by courts in regard to those who are not in a situation to take care of their own rights. These principles being now changed for this jurisdiction, the practice based on them necessarily falls. Cessante ratione cessat lex. Voorhees v. Bonesteel, 16 Wallace, 16, 31. The objection taken is overruled.
THE NEW YORK COFFEE POLISHING COMPANY (limited) v. WILSON.
(Circuit Court, E. D. New York.
COFFEE POLISHING.-The first claim of a patent being abandoned at the trial, and no defence being made to the averment of infring-ment of the second claim. held, that a decree must be given against the defendant for infringement of the second claim.
In Equity. TV. TV. Goodrich, for plaintiff. Richards tX Held, for defendant. BENEDICT, D. J. This is an action brought by the assignee of a, patent for an improvement in cleaning and polishing coffee, which patent was issued to William Thompson and Samnel Thompson, on January 31, 1871, numbered 111,403. Upon the trial the plaintiff abancloned the first claim of the patent and relies only upon the second claim.
MAGUIRE V. STEAM-BOAT. SYLVAN GLEN.
In regard to the second claim, the defendant did not at the trial undertake to dispute his liability, or to deny the plaintiff's right to a decree. Under such circumstances I discover no reason why, in this case, a decree should not go against the defendant for an infringement of the second claim of the patent.
THE STEAM-BoAT SYLVAN GLEN, etc.
THE HARLEM & NEW YORK NAVIGATION COMPANY SLOOP MAGUIRE BROTHERS, etc.
(JJistrict Uourt, 8. .D. New York.
JlIay 26, 1880.)
PRooll'.-The burden ison a steam-boat to clearly prove that the luffing Of a sloop would have saved a collision made imminent by the negligence of such steam-boat.
In Admiralty. W. W. Goodrich, for sloop. S. H. Valentine, for steam-boat. CHOATE, D. J. These are cross libelR to recover damages caused by a collision between the steam-boat Sylvan Glen and the sloop Maguire Brothers, on the evening of November 1, 1878, in the East river, about off pier 41. The steam-boat was on her regular trip to Astoria, having left Peck slip at 10 minutes past 6 o'clock. The sloop was light, bound from Newtown creek to Haverstraw. She was beating down theriver, the wind being about west, or noarly ahead-a fresh breeze. She left the creek about 5 o'clock, and had made several tacks across the river before the collision. The collision happened while she was on her starboard tack, standing across from the New York shore to the Brooklyn shore. The tide was strong ebb. The case made for the sloop in her pleadings is that both her side lights were set and burning brightly; that she ran out her port tack close to the New York shore, and stood about on the starboard tack, and after having gathered headway and while upon this tack, and when about three lengths