Court Opinion

ID: 9750946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:50:51.759341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:29.560947
License: Public Domain

Francis, J.
(dissenting). I would reverse this judgment and replace it with judgment in favor of the plaintiff against Richard Kuiphoff, Jr. and his employer, Prospect Park National Bank. The basic reasons for this view are set forth in my dissent in the original case in 49 N. J., at 396— 399. In my judgment both negligence and misrepresentation *82were so fully supported and strengthened at the trial that the verdict denying recovery to the plaintiff cannot be sustained in fact or in law.
For many years the defendant-bank had been in the business of rendering notarial services for its customers through its officer and official notary, Kuiphoff. During those years it had paid Kuiphoff’s notary fees and listed them as a business expense for tax purposes. So whenever Kuiphoff took an acknowledgment or an affidavit for a bank customer or at the instance of such a customer, he was acting in the regular course of his employment for the bank. Furnishing notarial services by the bank for its customers was so much in its interest that Kuiphoff did not charge them any fees for rendering the service. When he took the alleged acknowledgment of William Aitken in this case, it was a classic example of his customary and authorized activity in the interest of and for the benefit of the bank.
It cannot be doubted that plaintiff-insurance company would not have issued its bond guaranteeing performance of the work of the principal named therein, Burt ThomasAitken Construction Company, and incurred the substantial financial exposure represented thereby if the construction company and the individual indemnitors had not executed the indemnity agreement involved in this proceeding. The very first paragraph of the agreement expressly says so, and Kuiphoff had to be aware of the fact. Obviously the bond was issued in reliance upon (1) the signatures of the individual indemnitors, including William Aitken, and (2) the solemn assertion of the duly authorized bank officer-notary authenticating their signatures.
The indemnity agreement purports to have been signed by all the parties, including William Aitken, on December 1, 1961. The acknowledgments of signature and execution purport to have been taken by Kuiphoff on December 7. It has been established conclusively that William Aitken did not sign the agreement, that his signature is a forgery and that he neither appeared before the notary Kuiphoff nor acknowl*83edged to him that he had signed the instrument. But Kuiphoff’s verification and notarization represent to the world and particularly to the Commercial Union Insurance Company of New York, that on December 7, 1961 “before me personally appeared William Aitken, to me known and known to me to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and he acknowledged to me that \he~\ executed the same.” (Emphasis mine.) This representation was followed by Kuiphoff’s signature as a notary public. Obviously Aitken did not appear before him, was not known to him, and did not acknowledge that he had signed the instrument. The statement was false because Kuiphoif does not know Aitken. He has no recollection and no notes of what did occur. It seems unlikely that if he took five acknowledgments in one transaction involving an indemnity agreement (as appears to be the case here) he would havé an utter blank memory about it — especially since he testified that' such a group acknowledgment would be a rarity.
Kuiphoff’s total testimony is negative in form. He did not state that he actually took a proper acknowledgment. He relied only on his alleged customary practice (said to be) that he never took an acknowledgment unless he knew the signer personally or received satisfactory identification of the signer. The identification requirement he followed was minimal. If the person asking for the taking of his acknowledgment had an account at the bank, his signature card might be used or Kuiphoif might ask for his driver’s license • — ■ “something of that nature.” (Aitken’s firm had a substantial and active account at the bank, and as treasurer, his signature was on file there.) In my judgment merely checking a signature card is practically worthless as a means of identification. When asked if he could identify a signature if he saw one sample of it, Kuiphoif said “I could not distinguish from all the signatures we have at the bank.” But the sole representation in his acknowledgment is that he knew Aitken and that Aitken personally appeared before him. That was not true because he did not know Aitken, and obviously Aitken *84did not appear personally. He did not note on the acknowledgment or in any memorandum or record he kept of his transactions that someone in whom he had confidence introduced William Aitken to him that day, or that in some other way he obtained satisfactory identification verification. In my view in face of the undoubted forgery, Kuiphoff’s testimony was so lacking in probative substance as to be incapable of supporting a verdict in his favor or for the bank.
Kuiphoff’s false statement on the indemnity agreement constituted a representation of verity in the business world. It was a representation which he and the bank knew would be given credence in the channels of trade, and on which they knew (Kuiphoff testified that he took the acknowledgment so that the validity of the signature could be relied upon) the insurance company would rely as a basis for entering into the transaction. In fact, the plaintiff’s bond supervisor who supervised the construction company’s account testified that he examined the indemnity agreement for proper execution and acknowledgment, relied upon its propriety and advised the underwriters it could be accepted as a basis for issuing the bond. Under the circumstances Kuiphoff’s false statement in the acknowledgment that Aitken was known to him and personally appeared before him and acknowledged that he had signed the indemnity agreement, instead of noting thereon the true circumstances under which the acknowledgment was taken, constituted a violation of his statutory duty to the public as a notary and should render him liable for the injurious consequences that flowed therefrom. In my view the form of acknowledgment delivered to the bonding company was the equivalent of a guaranteed signature. Its effect was to relieve the plaintiff of all obligation to check Aitken’s signature. And the damage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the misrepresentation was brought about because the bank acting as an undisclosed principal and serving its own business interest had authorized its employee Kuiphoff to render notarial services to its customers.
*85The only just result here is an award in favor of the plaintiff against these two defendants.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Weirtraub and Justices Jacobs, Proctor, Hall, Schettiro and Haremar. — 6.
For reversal — Justice Erarcis — 1.