Having accepted the benefit of a lower rate dependent upon the specified valuation, the shipper is estopped from asserting a higher value.

Such has been the consistent ruling of this Court where the question presented concerned the conditions in bills of lading affecting the liability of the carrier such as are required by the Carmack Amendment, as amended, 49 USC § 20 (11), 49 USCA § 20 (11).

The receipt given in the present case, conforming as it did to the statutes and the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission, was equally binding upon the parties.

Having accepted the benefit which it derived from such agreement, by paying a lower rate, the plaintiff may not repudiate it now

The United States Supreme Court has held that the signing of the bill of lading by the shipper was not required for the bill of lading to constitute the written agreement of the parties.

Receipt of the writing by the shipper and his action upon it are adequate proof that he has assented to its terms and has made it the written agreement of the shipper and carrier.

"Although action in writing by the shipper is plainly required, his signature is not necessary but it does furnish good evidence that he did declare or agree in writing."

—receipt limiting express company's liability to value declared was binding on shipper, although not signed by him.

—the shipper, by receiving and acting upon the receipt of the express company, although the same was signed only by the latter, assented to the terms of the receipt, and the same became the written agreement of the parties.