Court Opinion

ID: 9442241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:41:03.34692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:01.535377
License: Public Domain

KERNER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In this case plaintiff, before the corn was harvested, rejected that corn which was unfit' for seed purposes, and took physical possession in the field of the fit corn and transported it to its plants. The tax that was assessed was only with respect to services after the accepted or fit corn seed reached plaintiff’s plant for distribution. *72That being so, the plant was the terminal market.
It seems to me that after the corn was removed from the farms of the various growers and had been delivered to plaintiff’s plant, plaintiff’s activity or work was processing, marketing, and selling seed. The services performed were commercial rather than agricultural. And the fact that plaintiff is a co-operative association is immaterial. It must be treated the same as any other individual or corporation.