2006-10-16 18:06:46 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Business & Finance ➔ Small Business
No signature needed.
2006-10-16 18:14:12 · answer #1 · answered by Daphne 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Checks don't "need" to be endorsed with a signature in this case because the legend "for deposit only to account # . . . " is already an endorsement assuming that the check is in favour of the same person as the beneficiary of the account number in the back of it.
For example: a check in favour of: John Smith, and the legend reads "for deposit only to account number XXXXXX in favour of John Smith", then there's no need to sign it, unless the beneficiary is different, then yes, the final beneficiary has to sign it.
2006-10-17 01:19:19 · answer #2 · answered by Classy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not usually. Some entities writing checks, including in some cases the federal government, require an actual signature.
2006-10-17 01:08:58 · answer #3 · answered by Judy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Usually depends on how the check is made out.
If it's made out to "Joe Bozo," then Joe better sign the check along with putting his account number on it.
If it's made out to "The Joe Bozo Company" or "Joe Bozo Inc", then you can get away with a stamp reading "For Deposit Only, NAME OF TH ECOMPANY, ACCOUNT NUMBER"
I've been doing it that way for almost 10 years.
2006-10-17 01:11:24 · answer #4 · answered by Doug E. Doug 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nope.
I was a teller for a bank and we could deposit with just the stamp, but you could not get a balance on the account.
2006-10-21 00:55:22 · answer #5 · answered by cooking mom 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes Otherwise anyone can put their acct # on it and say deposit only
2006-10-17 01:12:27 · answer #6 · answered by curly 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, sign them
2006-10-17 01:09:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I dunno....
2006-10-17 01:26:34 · answer #8 · answered by Sarah 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋