Question 551.— The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently held that the fact that a bank depositor had procured a rubber stamp which made a facsimile of his signature, was insufficient ground for charging him with a cheque on which his signature was forged by a clerk who used the stamp for the purpose.

Has a bank any right to refuse payment of cheques signed with a rubber stamp, having been instructed by the customer to pay such cheques? What protection has the bank against the danger of the stamp being used by an unauthorized party?

Answer.—If a bank consents to continue to keep the accounts of a customer who instructs it to pay cheques signed with a stamped signature, it cannot refuse to pay the cheques so signed, if otherwise in order.

As regards protection against the unauthorized use of the stamp, a bank would act very unwisely if it should oblige itself to accept such stamped signatures unless it had a contract with the customer that by whomsoever affixed, it should be regarded as his signature.

The question can hardly be regarded as having any practical bearing, as it is very unlikely that any depositor would wish to have money paid out on his account on the strength of a stamped signature.