How have the courts interpreted the term “transportus” or “termination” in a government bonded warehouse?

In Mohr v. Boston & Albany R.W. Co., 106 Mass. 67, the goods sold were in a government bonded warehouse in Indiana at the time of the contract, but it was a part of the terms of the sale that the vendors should from time to time, at the purchaser’s request, ship them to Boston and pay the storehouse charges, taxes and insurance, drawing on the purchaser for the amount. Having taken out a quantity of the goods, the vendors sent the bill of lading and the warehouseman’s bill to the purchaser, upon whom they drew for the amount. The barrels were delivered to carriers for transportation to the purchaser at Boston, and while on their passage were retaken by the vendors in the exercise of the right of stoppage in transitu. It was held, and I have no doubt correctly held, that this right had not been lost. The decision turned upon the principle to which I have made such frequent reference, that the goods had not reached the place contemplated by the contract between the buyer and seller as the place of destination, but that something remained to be done by the vendors under the contract before they would reach that place. The ordinary result was not the less to follow from the goods remaining stored in a government warehouse, “unless the transfer to the purchaser upon the records at the warehouse is to be treated as the termination of the transit.” The learned Judge proceeded to say: “But, as we have seen, the terms of the sale provided that the plaintiffs should forward the goods to Boston as their place of destination, and the storage in the warehouse was preliminary to their transit, and not the termination of it” The views thus expressed by the learned Judge would have led him to the conclusion in this case-that the transitus was at an end.