Similarly, in Baxendale v. Bennett, (') Bramwell, L.J., had occasion to consider the same point. In that case, the defendant gave H. his blank acceptance on a stamped paper and authorised H. to fill in his name as drawer. H. returned the blank acceptance to the defendant in the same st.ate in which he received it. The defendant put it into a drawer of his writing table at his chambers, which was unlocked, and it was lost or stolen. C. afterwards filled in his own name without the defendant's authority, and an action was brought on it by the plaintiff as endorsee for value. The court of Appeal held that the defendant was not liable on the bill. Dealing with the question of negligence attributed to the defendant, Bramwell L.J. observed that "the defendant may have been negligent, that is to say, if he had the paper from a third person, as a bailee bound to keep it with ordinary care', he would not have kept it in a drawer unlocked." But, said the learned Judge, this negligence is not the proximate or effective cause . of the fraud. A crime was necessary for its completion, and so, it was held that the defendant was not liable on the bill. This decision shows that negligence must be based on a duty ,owed by one party to the other and must, besides, be shown to have been the proximate or the immediate cause of the loss.
