Reed v. Cropp Concrete Machinery Co.

Decision Date05 January 1915
Docket Number2082.
Citation225 F. 764
PartiesREED v. CROPP CONCRETE MACHINERY CO. et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Rehearing Denied May 25, 1915.

Charles M. Clarke, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Glenn S. Noble, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before BAKER and SEAMAN, Circuit Judges, and GEIGER, District Judge.

GEIGER District Judge.

The rotary mixing drum is an appliance well known and generally used in the preparation of concrete mixtures. Reed's patent covers an improvement in such a mixer, particularly in the mechanism for actuating the charging blades or the covering gate for the delivering chute. His object is thus stated:

' * * * To provide means for operating the baldes or gate and also for holding the blades in mixing or charging position and for holding the gate open or closed and providing for operating either from either end of the mixer drum by means of a lever and spring mechanism.'

The invention is thus described by the patentee:

(Image Omitted)

'Referring to the drawings: Figure 1 is a view in front elevation of the mixer drum and portions of its supporting and rotating mechanism. Fig. 2 is a view of the drum from the back. Fig. 3 is a horizontal section on the line III, III, of Fig. 1. Fig 4 is a vertical sectional view on the line IV, IV, of Fig. 1 partly broken away. * * *

'In the drawings 2 represents the drum of cylindrical form, having a rear annular receiving chamber 3 between a back annular flange 4 and a rear partition 5. Partition 5 is provided with a centrally arranged inlet opening 6, and the shell between partition 5 and flange 4 has any suitable lifting mechanism, not shown, such as those shown in my prior application filed September 28, 1908, Serial No. 455,101.

'The front wall 7 of the drum is provided with a centrally arranged outlet opening defined by the delivery chute 8, which in the position shown in Fig. 1 slopes downwardly and terminates in upper horizontal edges 9, and opens into the interior or mixing compartment of the drum.

'The delivery chute is provided with a closing door or cover 10 entirely within the mixing chamber and immediately behind the front wall 7, mounted on a hinge rod 11 pivotally carried in suitable bearings in the front and back wall respectively. Rod 11 is provided at the front with an operating lever 12 and at the back with a similar operating lever 13 secured in any suitable manner, and these levers are so located that, when the gate is thrown open, the levers will occupy the positions in dotted lines in Figs. 1 and 2, the rear lever 13 extending across the opening 6. By this construction the gate may be operated by the lever at either end, and the position of the rear lever will always indicate to the workman whether the gate is open or closed. When open, the material will pass through the chute, and when closed will be deflected away therefrom to other portions of the mixer.

'For the purpose of positively holding the gate in either open or closed position, I provide a tension spring 14 secured at one end by any suitable attachment, as a bolt 15, preferably provided with a nut by which it may be adjusted in its bearing to tighten or loosen the spring. 16 is a link connecting spring 14 with lever 12, or arc shape as shown, so that when the lever is thrown downwardly into the position shown in dotted lines for opening the gate, the arc-shaped link 16 will reach around the end of shaft 11 without interference, as clearly shown.

'The point of attachment of link 16 with lever 12, is designed to pass beyond the dead center alignment with shaft 11 sufficiently far to insure a pull of the spring on the other side to positively hold the gate raised, as will be readily understood, while the normal tension of the spring in the closed position of the gate, tends to maintain it closed. By this construction it will be seen that the gate may be open or closed from either end by operating either lever 12 or 13, and will remain in either position against accidental shift or motion.

'Ordinarily, the gate lies down upon the top edges of chute 8 as indicated in the principal figures of the drawings.'

Permissible modifications of the structure-- also disclosed and claimed-- need not, in view of the issue, be noted. The controverted claims of the patent are:

'1. A rotary concrete mixer drum provided in its interior with an adjustable material-deflecting element having a limited range of movement, a rocking shaft extending longitudinally of the drum carrying said element and having an operating lever, and spring mechanism connected with the drum and lever adapted to positively hold the lever, shaft and deflecting element when thrown to the limit of movement in either direction, substantially as set forth.
'2. A rotary concrete mixer drum provided in its interior with an adjustable material-deflecting element having a limited range of movement, a rocking shaft extending longitudinally of the drum carrying said element and having an operating lever and spring mechanism connected with the drum having an arc-shaped terminal engaging the lever and adapted to positively hold it and the shaft and deflecting element when thrown to the limit of movement in either direction, substantially as set forth.'
'4. A rotary concrete mixer drum provided in its interior with an adjustable material-deflecting element having a limited range of movement, a rocking shaft extending longitudinally of the drum carrying said element and having an operating lever at its end, and spring mechanism embodying an arc-shaped portion connected
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Dangler v. Imperial Mach. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • March 5, 1926
    ...act outside the scope of their official duties. Cazier v. Mackie-Lovejoy Mfg. Co., 138 F. 654, 71 C. C. A. 104; Reed v. Cropp Concrete Mach. Co., 225 F. 764, 141 C. C. A. 90. It may be successfully urged that this court in Reed v. Cropp Mach. Co., did not reaffirm the decision announced in ......
  • Stromberg Motor Devices Co. v. Holley Bros. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • July 16, 1919
    ... ... v. Randon Milling Co. (D.C.) 217 F. 796; Reed v ... Cropp Concrete Machinery Co., 225 F. 764, 141 C.C.A. 90 ... ...
  • Panther Pumps & Equipment Co., Inc. v. Hydrocraft, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • October 24, 1972
    ...they act outside the scope of their official duties. Cazier v. Mackie-Lovejoy Mfg. Co., 138 F. 654, 71 C.C.A. 104; Reed v. Cropp Concrete Mach. Co., 225 F. 764, 141 C.C.A. 90. * * * * * "After due consideration of the various authorities, as well as the reasons back of the two positions, we......
  • Brookheim v. Greenbaum
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 8, 1915
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT