Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-401 (2026)
Signature
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) A person is not liable on an instrument unless (i) the person signed the instrument, (ii) the person is represented by an agent or representative who signed the instrument and the signature is binding on the represented person under § 47-3-402, or (iii) if the instrument is a payee-initiated draft, the person is the customer on whose account the instrument is drawn and has authorized its creation according to the terms on its face.
- (b) 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.
Acts 1995, ch. 397, § 2; 2003, ch. 62, §§ 5, 6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1987–2010 · leading case: First Peoples Bank of Tennessee v. Hill, 340 S.W.3d 398 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
First Peoples Bank of Tennessee v. Hill, 340 S.W.3d 398 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “The defendant argues that the judgment of the trial court ignores Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-401 (Supp.2009) and Cumberland Bank v.”
Billie Mclemore v. J.W. Powell & Raymond Nelson, 968 S.W.2d 799 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “(4) Whether the provisions of T.C.A. § 47-3-401 are applicable to the note in this case.”
Kaley Ex Rel. Lanham v. Union Planters Nat'l Bank of Memphis, 775 S.W.2d 607 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-401 (1). The signature of the drawer is one of the essential elements to the validity of a check and the general rule is the bank must know the genuineness of a depositor's signature.”
Vending Chattanooga, Inc. v. Am. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 730 S.W.2d 624 (Tenn. 1987). “In a forgery case, we start with the basic premise and rule of law that between the customer and the bank, the bank must bear the loss where monies have been paid out *626 due to a third party forging the customer’s signature on a check.”
Alexander v. Armentrout, Jr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “He urges us to find that she is liable on a theory of implied contract because she was present at closing; because her name was on the $50,000 cashier’s check as a remitter; because she signed the loan papers at the bank from which the $50,000 down payment came; because her name…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-401(1) — 1 case
Vending Chattanooga, Inc. v. Am. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 730 S.W.2d 624 (Tenn. 1987). “In a forgery case, we start with the basic premise and rule of law that between the customer and the bank, the bank must bear the loss where monies have been paid out *626 due to a third party forging the customer’s signature on a check.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-401(a) — 1 case
Alexander v. Armentrout, Jr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “He urges us to find that she is liable on a theory of implied contract because she was present at closing; because her name was on the $50,000 cashier’s check as a remitter; because she signed the loan papers at the bank from which the $50,000 down payment came; because her name…”
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.