B-118192, JANUARY 15, 1954, 33 COMP. GEN. 297

B-118192, JANUARY 15, 1954, 33 COMP. GEN. 297

SIGNATURE - FACSIMILE - RUBBER STAMP FACSIMILE SIGNATURE WHICH HAS BEEN RUBBER-STAMPED ON THE CERTIFIED INVOICE OF A CONTRACTOR WHOSE RESPONSIBLE OFFICER HAS ADOPTED AND RECOGNIZED SUCH FACSIMILE AS HIS OWN SIGNATURE, AND WHICH AFFORDS THE UNITED STATES NO LESS PROTECTION THAN A HANDWRITTEN SIGNATURE, MAY BE ACCEPTED AS VALID.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL WARREN TO A. J. LANG, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, JANUARY 15, 1954:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 29, 1953, REQUESTING TO BE ADVISED WHETHER THE INVOICE ENCLOSED THEREWITH, SUBMITTED BY THE OHIO OIL COMPANY, FINDLAY, OHIO, MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT. YOUR QUESTION IN THE MATTER ARISES BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY'S CERTIFICATE ON THE INVOICE HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITH RUBBER STAMP SIGNATURE OF THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF THE COMPANY RATHER THAN WITH THE HANDWRITTEN SIGNATURE OF SUCH OFFICIAL.

IN REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF THE SIGNATURE THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF THE COMPANY STATED THAT IT IS THE CUSTOMARY PRACTICE OF THE COMPANY TO USE A RUBBER STAMP SIGNATURE AND THAT ANY EXCEPTIONS WOULD WORK A DISRUPTION IN ITS PROCEDURES. IN ADDITION, HE REFERRED TO THE CASES OF DRUCKER V. REICKLE, 81 N.E. 2D; TABAS V. EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION, 9 F.2D 648; HILL V. UNITED STATES, 288 F.192; AND JOSEPH DENUNZIO FRUIT COMPANY V. CRANE, 188 F.2D 569, IN WHICH THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED THE VALIDITY OF SUCH SIGNATURES. IN VIEW THEREOF AND SINCE, IN EFFECT, THE SIGNER OF THE INVOICE HAS ADOPTED AND RECOGNIZED THE RUBBER STAMP SIGNATURE AS HIS SIGNATURE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT SUCH SIGNATURE OF SUCH OFFICIAL WOULD AFFORD ANY LESS PROTECTION TO THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES THAN WOULD HIS HANDWRITTEN SIGNATURE.

ACCORDINGLY, THE VOUCHER, WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH, MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT, IF OTHERWISE CORRECT.