746 FEDKRAL EEPOBTEB. �Love, T>. J. This case is before the court on demurrei to the petition. The petition alleges that the plaintiff, who is a citizen of Canada, had on January 1, 1879, certain oribs of com which had been purchased in Crawford county, lowa, for the purpose of shipment to Canada ; that said corn had been moved by the plaintiff from its place of production towards its destination beyond the state and temporarily placed in oribs; that it was in cribs, awaiting shipment by the Chicago & North-western Eailway, on the first day of January, 1879; that the plaintifs intention was at all times to move said com in bulk beyond the state, and not to use, sell, or manufacture the same within the state of lowa ; and that the ootn bas sinoe been removed in bulk out of the state, no part df the same having been sold, used, or manufactured therein. �It is alleged further that while the com was so tempo- rarily in cribs it was assessed as property of a non-resident, a tax levied upon the same, and a warrant issued to the sher- iff, whereby the plaintiff was compelled, in order to save his property, to pay the taxes levied aforesaid. �There is a second count stating different circumstances, but presenting the same question. The petition prays judg- ment for the amount of taxes paid, amounting to $502.22, with interest. �The question thus presented is whether or not the prop- erty taxed was, on the first day of, January; 1879, when it was assessed for taxation, in the course of transportation from the state of lowa to any other state or country as an article of commerce. In a word, was it in commercial -transit ? That a state cannot levy a tax upon property in transit to other states and countries is clear, because the property then bas no situs in the state, in the proper legal sense of that word. It would be a most serions evil, and a direct obstruction to interstate commerce, for any state to exercise the power of taxing property while in commercial transit to other states or countries. �The question then is, was the property in commercial tran- sit? The petition is not as clear and explicit asit might be, but the fair construction of it is that the plaintiff, haying pur- ��� �
