OGILVIE V. OEAWFORD OOUNTY. TiS �not make an usurious contract void ; indeed, such a contract is only voidable as to the excess of interest. Did our legisla- ture intend in this respect to overtum one of the great prin- ciples governing commercial paper in this and other coun- tries y It is noticeable that the legislature does not, in the sections j'ust referred to, use terms appropriate to commer- cial paper. The language is that the proper "assignee," not indorsee, shall be entitled to the remedy over against the usurer. �In strict legal parlanoe we do not use the term "assignee" when we mean to designate the indorsees of bills and notes. I am therefore inclined to think that the legislature, in using the term "assignee," did not mean to provide for innocent indorsees of mercantile paper who were already amply pro- tected by the law merchant, but for that large class of assign- ees who, in the absence of such a provision, would step into the shoes of their assignors with just the same rights, reme- dies, and equities to which their assignors are entitled, and none other. �Judgment for the complainant. ���OaiLviE V. Cbawfobd County. (Circuit Court, B. lowa. May 11, 1881.) �1. Pbopbbtt in Tbansit— Taxation. �One State cannot levy a tax upon property in commercial transit tO' another state or country. �2. Same. �A cargo of com purchased in lowa for the purpose of shipment to Canada was removed to the railway and temporarily stored in ciibs to await transportation. Heid, while eo stored for a reasonable time, to be in transit and exempt from taxation, provided the purchaser intended to ship immediately, or as soon as transportation could be- conveniently obtained. �Demurrer. �A.B.ceJ. C. Cummins, for plaintiff. �J. F. McJunkin, for defendant. ��� �
