OGILVIB V. CEAWFORD COUNTT. 74t �ehased the corn from various parties, caused it to be removed to the railway and there put it in cribs temporarily, tp await transportation, and witb the purp'ose on his part to have it carried beyond the state. �This allegation of intention is essential, because otherwise a purchaser might crib his corn on a railway with no purpose of immediate shipment, bat for the purpose of awailitig the future course of the markets, or with intent to evade taxation ; in which cases the transit would, in my opinion, be treated as at an end, for the time being at least. If this wsre not so, a party might keep his property in cribs near a railroad for an indefinite period of time, exempt from taxation, with- out any purpose of immediate shipment. �There must be in my judgment a purpose to ship immedi- ately, or at least as soon as transportation can be conveni- ently obtained, followed by actual shipment in a reasonable time, in order to exempt the property from taxation. With this qualification the cribbing of the corn may be treated as a thing done from neeessity or for convenience in the course of transportation. It certainly would be unreasonable to require that a party, in order to bring himself within the pro- tection of the la-* as a shipper in trcmsitu, should transfer the corn directly from his wagons to the cars, or place it upon the ground to be thence transferred to the cars; and this he would be eompelled to do unless he may place it in cribs or store it temporarily in warehouses lo await the means of shipment in the ordinary course of transportation. It would seriously cripple and obstruct commerce in the productions of this state, and thus inflict a great injury upon our own people, if a purchaser could not temporarily deposit the property purchased in cribs or warehouses to await the means of transportation. �I have examined the cases cited by the defendant's counsel, and I cannot see that any of them touch this case at all ex- cept Carrier v. Gordon, 21 Ohio, 605. That cass is similar to the present, but clearly distinguishable from it. Indeed, if the language of the court in deciding it be well considered. ��� �
