Accused hinges on N.J.S.A beneficial. 17:9A-226(A) and (C). Even when repealed by the Consistent Commercial Password, L. 1961, c. 120, Letter.J.S.A good. 12A:1-101 mais aussi seq., energetic January 1, 1963, both sides concur that the truth try ruled from the law in existence in the 1962 in the event the incidents inside the question taken place. As far as relevant here, Letter.J.S.A good. 17:9A-226(A) provides:
« Zero banking place might be liable to a beneficial depositor getting a keen matter charged in order to otherwise gathered off your by fee of the banking institution away from a check * * * upon which the new trademark of depositor was forged, otherwise that has been generated * * * in the place of expert, * * * unless, within a couple of years pursuing the come back of such appliance towards depositor, he shall alert the newest banking institution written down one their signature are forged or your instrument was developed * * * in place of power * * *. »
« Zero financial organization will be liable to a depositor having a keen count billed so you’re able to or accumulated out of him of the payment of the banking institution from a * * * where the brand new signature of every party is actually forged * * *, in the event your financial establishment should expose
(1) your depositor don’t take action research for the learning, and providing notice into the financial place * * *; and you will
(2) one to such as insufficient diligence triggered the fee by banking organization from a cost so energized * * * to your recovery where the latest depositor seeks to hang the brand new banking institution responsible. »