In Re Taylor

(after stating the facts as above). For the first time,'so far as we can find, the bare negligence of the bankrupt’s attorney is put forward as “unavoidably preventing” him from filing his petition. In re Churchill (D. C.) 197 F. 111, was not. such a ease, for the attorneys had misunderstood the bankrupt’s directions. We do not mean to say that this in our judgment was excuse enough, but it distinguishes the ease from that at bar. In Re Waller, 249 F. 187 (C. C. A. 7), the attorney had been sick for the last three months of the year, an excuse which we held sufficient in the' bankrupt’s…