NOeTON ». BILLiNGa." 623 �any has been committed by this court, and take the opinion of the supreme court upon the question. If that court, upon proper application, shall be of opinion that under the facts in this case the plaintiff is entitled to a writ of possession, this court will follow that ruling without any order being made, and upon being informe d that the supreme court has made such ruling. ���Norton, Assignee, v. Billings and others. (Oireuit Court, JT. J). lUinoit. November 27, 1880.) �1. Vbndbb — Fhaud — Pruia Facib Ettoenoe. — A 'sale by a retaîl mer- �chant of bis whole stock, vithin the period lùnited by the bankrupt act, is prima facie evidence of fraud against the vendee. �2. Samb — Consideration — Presumption. — Such presumption caanot be �overthrown by proof that the full value of the property was paid in ignorance of the insolvency of the vendor. Walbrun v. Baibitt, 16 Wall. 677. �3. Bame— Fhaud — FrEsuMPrioN. — Such presumption can only be over- �come by proof on the part of the vendee that he took the proper steps to flnd out the pecuniary condition of the vendor. Waibrun v. Babbitt, supra. �4. Same— Evidence. — It is competent for the vendee to show, however, �that the insolvent vendor intended in good faith to use the means acquired from the sale in the payment of his debts, pro rata, among his creditera. �In Bankruptcy. �J. W. Ela, for plaintiff. �Sidney Smith, for defendants. �DsuMMOND, 0. J. Nowlin & McElwaîn had been for several years engaged in business as jewelers in the city of Chicago, prior to the spring of 1870, when they became embarrassed, and found it necessary to demand an extension from their creditors. McElwain accordingly went to New York in May of that year, where the firm was indebted to different mer- chants, to the amount of more than $20,000. While there he made a statement of the condition of the affairs of the firmi ����
