90e FEDERAL REPORTER. �of such other person. Goldsmith v. American Paper Collar Co. 2 Fed. Eep. 239. On the same principle such other per- son 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 raie of joining husband with wife in suits to recover her personal property was founded upon the princi- ple of unity of existence and interest between husband and wife, in law, and the right of the husband in the wife's per- sonal 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 praetice based on them neeessarily falls. Cessante ratione cessai lex. Voorhees v. Bonesteel, 16 Wallace, 16, 31. The objection taken is overruled. ���The New York Coffee Poushing Company (limited) v, �WiLSON. �{Circuit Court, B. D. New York. June 11, 1880.) �Pateist for Copfbb Polishing. — The first olaira of a patent being aban- don ed at the trial, and no defence being raade to the averment of in- fringment of the second claim, hdd, that a decree must be given against the defendant for infringement of the second claim. �In Equity. �W. W. Goodrich, for plaintiff. �Richards d 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 issuedtoWilliamThompsonand Sam- uel Thompson, on January 31, 1S71, numbered 111,403. Upon the trial the plaintiff abandoned the first claim of the patent and relies only upon the second claim. ����
