Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 440 / Act 174 of 1962
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3401 (2026)

Liability; signature.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE


Act 174 of 1962


440.3401 Liability; signature.

Sec. 3401.

    (1)  A person is not liable on an instrument unless (i) the person signed the instrument, or (ii) the person is represented by an agent or representative who signed the instrument and the signature is binding on the represented person under section 3402.

    (2) A signature may be made (i) manually or by means of a device or machine, and (ii) by the use of any name, including a trade or assumed name, or by a word, mark, or symbol executed or adopted by a person with present intention to authenticate a writing.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 130, Eff. Sept. 30, 1993

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1972–2014 · leading case: People v. Hogan, 571 N.W.2d 737 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Hogan, 571 N.W.2d 737 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Under MCL 440.3401; MSA 19.3401, only defendant would be liable on the instrument.”
Matco Tools Corp. v. Pontiac State Bank, 614 F. Supp. 1059 (E.D. Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “MCLA § 440.3401(2). Here, the check bore an endorsement stamp bearing the words “Mateo Tools.”
King-Of-All Mfg., Inc. v. Genesee Merchants Bank & Trust Co., 245 N.W.2d 104 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “MCLA 440.3401; MSA 19.3401. In fact, the words "King Manufacturing Company” appear twice on the checks, and the amounts stamped on the checks are preceded by "King Mfg.”
Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods., Inc. v. Nbd Bank, N.A., N/k/a Nbd Bank, & Nbd Bank Dearborn, N.A., 98 F.3d 904 (6th Cir. 1996). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3401 (2). Neither “no stops” nor “TV” constitutes NBD’s signed agreement to pay the cheeks as presented.”
People v. Hodgins, 270 N.W.2d 527 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “Under MCL 440.3401; MSA 19.3401, only defendant would be liable on the instrument.”
Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods., Inc. v. NBD Bank, N.A., 890 F. Supp. 651 (E.D. Mich. 1995). · cites it 2× “” As to the definition of a “signature,” according to MCLA § 440.3401, (1) A person is not liable on an instrument unless (i) the person signed the instrument, or (ii) the person is represented by an agent or representative who signed the instrument and the signature is binding…”
Littky & Mallon v. Michigan Nat'l Bank, 287 N.W.2d 359 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “We note that the definition of the term signature in MCL 440.3401(2); MSA 19.3401(2) is broadly construed.”
Winkler v. Com. Nat'l Bank of L'Anse, 202 N.W.2d 468 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “3404(1); MCLA 440.3401; MSA 19.3401. Under MCLA 440.”
People v. Van Horn, 339 N.W.2d 475 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “Under MCL 440.3401; MSA 19.3401, only defendant would be liable on the instrument.”
State Bank v. Dale M Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “” MCL 440.3401, comment 1. MCL 440.3403(1) further states, “Unless otherwise provided in this article or article 4, [MCL 440.”
Com. Sav. Bank v. G & J Wood Prods. Co., Inc., 207 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “MCLA 440.3401; MSA 19.3401 provides: "No person is liable on an instrument unless his signature appears thereon.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3401(1) — 1 case
State Bank v. Dale M Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “” MCL 440.3401, comment 1. MCL 440.3403(1) further states, “Unless otherwise provided in this article or article 4, [MCL 440.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3401(2) — 2 cases
Matco Tools Corp. v. Pontiac State Bank, 614 F. Supp. 1059 (E.D. Mich. 1985). “MCLA § 440.3401(2). Here, the check bore an endorsement stamp bearing the words “Mateo Tools.”
Littky & Mallon v. Michigan Nat'l Bank, 287 N.W.2d 359 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “We note that the definition of the term signature in MCL 440.3401(2); MSA 19.3401(2) is broadly construed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.