aOLDSMITH ». AM. PÀ?EB OOLIiAB 00. 389 �ton had before been sewed on with thread at the upper end of the seam, at the edge of the pocket opening, to prevent the thread of the seam from being wom away, and the seam had been stayed by sewing in leather or other fabric, and there ■was no invention in passing from these arrangements to Davis'. It is suffioient to say that there ia no force in any of these suggestions as against the validity of the patent. Nor is it shown that the invention, as before defined, was known or in any use before it was made by Davis. The defendants, to def eat the patent on the ground of want of novelty, must make out the defence by satisfactory and preponderating proof. This they have not done. In coming to this conclusion I have considered the Magee coat, the Nightingale coat, the evidence grouped in the defendant's brief under the heads "Nevada (C)" and "Ne\uda, (D,)" the evidence of Stanton, Ford.'Eichville and Hogbin, the Orr overalls, the patent to Bovrker, and the patent to Bellford. There must be the usual decree for the plaintiffs. ���GoLDSMiTH and another v. The Ambeioan Paper Collas �Company, �{Oircuit Court, 8. D. Mw York. April 27, 1880.) �Pateiît— Action foe Infbingbment — Partt Complainant.— An ac- tion for the infringement of a patent must be brought in the name of the real and beneficiai party in interest. �John D. Shedlock, for plaintififs. �William A. Jenner, for defendant. �Blatohtord, <3. J. This is a suit in equîty, brought for the infringement of letters patent granted to Charles Spofford and James H. Hoffman. The bill sets forth that Spofford and Hoffman are the sole legàl owners of the patent; that Spofford, after the grant of the patent, entered into an agree- ment in writing with the plaintiff Goldsmith, -whereby, among other things, he appointed Goldsmith his attomey, "andinhia ����
