B-114997, MAY 15, 1953

B-114997: May 15, 1953

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 27. WHICH HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED TO AND SIGNED BY RUBBER STAMP SIGNATURES. IN WHICH IT IS URGED THAT SUCH SIGNATURES BE ACCEPTED. STATES - "I AM SURE IT CAN BE APPRECIATED THAT AUTOGRAPHIC SIGNATURES ON ALL INSTRUMENTS ISSUED BY THIS COMPANY WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL WERE EMPLOYED. I HAVE ADOPTED THE RUBBER STAMP AS MY SIGNATURE WHEN ACTING IN BEHALF OF THIS COMPANY AND I PERSONALLY PLACE THE SAME ON DOCUMENTS REQUIRING MY SIGNATURE.

B-114997, MAY 15, 1953

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

MR. W. R. GLAVIN, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 27, 1953, TRANSMITTING THREE INVOICES IN THE AMOUNTS OF $162.30, $60.66 AND $141.62, SUBMITTED BY THE OHIO OIL COMPANY, WHICH HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED TO AND SIGNED BY RUBBER STAMP SIGNATURES. YOU ALSO ENCLOSED A COPY OF LETTER DATED APRIL 9, 1953, FROM THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF THE COMPANY, WHOSE RUBBER STAMP SIGNATURE APPEARS ON THE INVOICES, IN WHICH IT IS URGED THAT SUCH SIGNATURES BE ACCEPTED. BECAUSE THE CLAIMANT RETURNED THE INVOICES WITH RUBBER STAMP SIGNATURES, AS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED, AFTER BEING ADVISED OF THE SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT THERETO, YOU REQUEST A DECISION WHETHER YOU MAY CERTIFY THE INVOICES FOR PAYMENT.

THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF THE CLAIMANT COMPANY, IN SECOND PARAGRAPH OF HIS LETTER OF APRIL 9, 1953, STATES -

"I AM SURE IT CAN BE APPRECIATED THAT AUTOGRAPHIC SIGNATURES ON ALL INSTRUMENTS ISSUED BY THIS COMPANY WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL WERE EMPLOYED, GIVEN TITLES, AND RESTRICTED IN THEIR DUTIES TO SIGNING DOCUMENTS. I HAVE ADOPTED THE RUBBER STAMP AS MY SIGNATURE WHEN ACTING IN BEHALF OF THIS COMPANY AND I PERSONALLY PLACE THE SAME ON DOCUMENTS REQUIRING MY SIGNATURE. EXCEPTIONS TO THIS PRACTICE WOULD BE AN INTOLERABLE BURDEN IF I HAD TO LOOK AT EACH DOCUMENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER I HAD TO PLACE AN AUTOGRAPHIC SIGNATURE THEREON. THIS WOULD IN LARGE MEASURE DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE RUBBER STAMP, WHICH I RECOGNIZE AS MY SIGNATURE."

IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SIGNER OF THE INVOICES IN THIS CASE HAS ADOPTED AND RECOGNIZED THE RUBBER STAMP SIGNATURE AS HIS SIGNATURE, AND SINCE THE VALIDITY OF SUCH RUBBER STAMP SIGNATURE HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COURTS TO BE A BINDING AND LEGAL SIGNATURE (DRUCKER V. REICKLE, N.E. 2D 735; TABAS V. EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION, 9 F. 2D 648, AND OTHERS CITED BY THE CLAIMANT), THE HANDWRITTEN SIGNATURE OF THE CLAIMANT'S REPRESENTATIVE NEED NOT BE REQUIRED ON THE SAID INVOICES.

ACCORDINGLY, THE INVOICES, HEREWITH RETURNED, MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT, IF OTHERWISE CORRECT.