I. Under the law of sales, the perishable fresh milk products sold by appellee to purchasers who resided in Mississippi were sales made within the State of Tennessee, and the decision of the Chancellor to this effect is correct and supported by the law and the evidence. In Re Shumaker, 277 Fed. 521; In Re Smith, 51 F.2d 290; Powell v. Aldridge, 202 Miss. 648, 32 So.2d 146; Savell v. Schultz, Baujan Co., 213 Miss. 427, 57 So.2d 151; Sethness Co. v. Home Ade Bottling Co., 111 Miss. 151, 71 So. 308; Southern Creosoting Co. v. Whitfield, 130 Miss. 476, 94 So. 452; State v. J.W. Kelly Co., 123 Tenn. 556, 133 S.W. 1011; W.F. Moody Co. v. Boyle Gin Co., 180 Miss. 523, 177 So. 654; Sec. 4560-101, Code 1942; Secs. 47-1218, 47-1219, 47-1246, Tennessee Code Annotated; 46 Am. Jur., Sales, Secs. 36, 411, 440, 442. II. The sales made by appellee were sales in interstate commerce.
16 Am. Jur. Sales, sec. 56; Oklahoma Vinegar Company v. Carter, 116 Ga. 140, 42 S.E. 378, 59 L.R.A. 122, 94 Am. St. Rep. 112 (1902); Planters Oil Mill Mfg. Co. v. Falls, 29 So. 786 (Miss. 1901); Sethness Company v. Homeade Bottling Co., 111 Miss. 151, 71 So. 308 (1916); Hercules Mfg. Co. v. Wallace, 124 Miss. 27, 86 So. 706 (1920); Powell v. Aldridge, 202 Miss. 648, 32 So.2d 146 (1947). Appellant is not relieved of its liability under the contract on the grounds of rescission. 46 Am. Jur. Sales, secs. 309, 356, 359, 362-4, 366; Black, Rescission and Cancellation, par. 184.
Furthermore, though prepayment of freight may be evidence to show that the seller assumes the duty of delivery so as to preclude delivery to the carrier from operating as a delivery of the goods to the buyer, such prepayment is not conclusive and does not necessarily establish the fact that delivery was to be at the place of destination (see Seaver v. Lindsay Light Co., 111 Misc. 553, 556, revd. 196 A.D. 397, but affd. 233 N.Y. 273; Dannemiller v. Kirkpatrick, 201 Pa. 218, 224, 225; McLaughlin v. Marston, 78 Wis. 670, 677, 678). The seller's prepayment of the freight, where not required by the contract, does not prevent the passing of title on shipment, so that recovery of the price may be permitted despite the buyer's rejection of the goods for delayed delivery (see Kemper-Thomas v. Deitz, supra; Powell v. Aldridge, 202 Miss. 648; see, also, People v. Western Picture Frame Co., 368 Ill. 336). This is particularly true in the present case, and the prepayment of the freight to the buyer loses significance as an evidentiary factor to show that the seller assumed the duty of making delivery of the goods at destination. In this connection the uncontradicted testimony on behalf of the plaintiff is that he did not undertake delivery to the buyer at the latter's place of business, that he regarded the goods as the property of the buyer on shipment and considered himself entitled to the price, for which the defendant was promptly invoiced.