The Interstate Commerce Commission and numerous courts have passed on the question involved in this case in the light of the Interstate Commerce Act, and almost without exception hold that the consignor must pay if the consignee does not. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Hyder, 279 F. 783; New York Central R.R. Co. v. Federal Sugar Refining Co., 235 N.Y. 182; Cleveland, etc. Ry. Co. v. Southern Coal Coke Co., 147 Tenn. 433; New York, etc. R.R. Co. v. Tonella, 79 N.H. 464; Wells Fargo Co. v. Cuneo, 241 F. 727; Boise Commercial Club v. Adams Express Co., 17 I.C.C. 115; Boston Maine R.R. v. National Orange Co., 232 Mass. 351; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Hocking Valley Fire Clay Co., 166 Wis. 465; Chicago, etc. Ry. Co. v. Peterson, 168 Wis. 193; Baltimore Ohio S.W. Ry. Co. v. New Albany Box Basket Co., 48 Ind. App. 647; Atchison, T. S.F. Ry. Co. v. Standard Co., 99 Kan. 720; Jelks v. Philadelphia Reading Ry. Co., 14 Ga. App. 96. It is true that, in practically all of the above cases, there was no dispute but that the consignee was insolvent, because it is not the practice to collect undercharges from consignors when there is any reasonable prospect of making collection from the consignee.
Delivery of the goods without collection is no release or waiver of any or either party. This we held in the Ross Lumber Co. Case, supra, and such is the decision in New York Cent. R. Co. v. Philadelphia Reading Coal Iron Co., 286 Ill. 267 ( 121 N.E. 581); Boston M.R.R. Co. v. National Orange Co., 232 Mass. 351 ( 122 N.E. 313); Montpelier Wells River R.R. Co. v. Bianchi Sons, 95 Vt. 81 ( 113 A. 534); New York, N.H. H.R.R. Co. v. Tonella, 79 N.H. 464 ( 111 A. 341); Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Hocking Valley Fire Clay Co., 166 Wis. 465 (166 N.E. 41); Chicago N.W. Ry. Co. v. Queenan, 102 Neb. 391 ( 167 N.W. 410, L.R.A. 1918D, 946); Wells Fargo Co. v. Cuneo (D.C.), 241 Fed. 727."
Moreover, this general rule among the Federal courts also represents the position of those State jurisdictions which have considered the same question in conjunction with similar statutory obligations on carriers to collect the full charges imposed by published tariffs. Nashville, C. St. L. Ry. Co. v. Gilliam (1924), 212 Ala. 120, 101 So. 889; Main Central R.R. Co. v. Fred I. Merrill, Inc. (1961), 157 Me. 484, 174 A.2d 112; New York, New Haven Hartford R.R. Co. v. Lord Spencer, Inc. (1931), 273 Mass. 583, 174 N.E. 179; Mobile Ohio R.R. Co. v. Laclede Lumber Co. (1919), 202 Mo. App. 630, 216 S.W. 798; New York, New Haven Hartford R.R. Co. v. Tonella (1920), 79 N.H. 464, 111 A. 341; Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Youngstown Plant Flower Co. (C.P. Mahoning County 1960), 85 Ohio L. Abs. 440, 171 N.E.2d 220; Cleveland, C., C. St. L. Ry. Co. v. Southern Coal Coke Co. (1922), 147 Tenn. 433, 248 S.W. 297; see also Annot., 88 A.L.R.2d 1375 (1963), and Annot., 83 A.L.R. 245 (1933). The general rule refusing to estop a carrier from collecting deficiencies in previously paid tariffs is consonant with the explicit duty imposed on carriers by the provisions of the Illinois Public Utilities Act set forth earlier herein.
Delivery of the goods without collection is no release or waiver of any or either party. This we held in the Ross Lumber Co. Case ( supra), and such is the decision in New York Central R.R. Co. v. Philadelphia Reading C. I. Co. ( 286 Ill. 267); B. M.R.R. v. National Orange Co. ( 232 Mass. 351); Montpelier Wells River R.R. Co. v. Bianchi Sons (113 Atl. Rep. 534); N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co. v. Tonella ( 79 N.H. 464); Gt. Northern Ry. Co. v. Hocking Valley Fire Clay Co. ( 166 Wis. 465); C. N.W. Ry. Co. v. Queenan ( 102 Neb. 391); Wells Fargo Co. v. Cuneo (241 Fed. Rep. 727). The judgment of the court below in favor of the defendant upon these causes of action should be reversed, and as there is no dispute about the amount due, judgment should be ordered for the plaintiff for the amount claimed in the complaint, with costs in all courts.
This is true, even though the carrier makes delivery in violation of Section 323 of Title 49, U.S.C.A., and violates the Rules of the Commission as to extending credit to the consignee, or fails to show that it complied with the Rules of the Commission relative to the extension of credit to the consignee. Western Maryland Ry. Co. v. Cross, 96 W. Va. 666, 123 S.E. 572; Portland Flouring Mills Co. v. British F. M. Ins. Co., 9 Cir., 130 F. 860, certiorari denied 195 U.S. 629, 25 S.Ct. 787, 49 L.Ed. 352; New York, N. H. N. R. Co. v. Tonella, 79 N.H. 464, 111 A. 341; New York, N. H. N. R. Co. v. California Fruit Growers Exchange, 125 Conn. 241, 5 A.2d 353, certiorari denied 308 U.S. 567, 60 S.Ct. 79, 84 L.Ed. 476; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Marcelletti, 256 Mich. 411, 240 N.W. 4, 78 A.L.R. 923; Moss Lbr. Co. v. Michigan Central Ry. Co., 219 Ala. 593, 123 So. 90; Missouri-Pacific Ry. Co. v. Sorrell, D.C., 21 F. Supp. 886. Unless the consignor signs the non-recourse stipulation in the bill of lading he expressly contracts to be liable for the freight.