
    Bell v. Wilson.
    
      Opinion on motion for reconsideration.
    
    It is not ruled in this case, as counsel seems to suppose, that a subsequent creditor .or purchaser may not attack the deed of Moore as a fraud upon his rights. See Adams v.. Edgerton, 48 Ark., 41Q ; Driggs v. Norwood, go Ark., 42. It is only determined that the Allen decree was not evidence of" that fact in this suit.
    Motion denied.
     