Allman for an order cancelling and Fescinding.a ce-partnership agree~ ment between the two lawyers dated September 30, 1936, and for the recovery of U.S-$6500 plus interest Since May 17, 1037, plus costs and attorney's fee ~The complaint alleges that the defendant requested the plaintitt to pay him US.$0,500 as a-consideration for entering into the agreement when the defendant knew or should have known as an attorney at law that the agreement was contrary to the laws of the United States. The complaint further alleges that the defendant raudutently concealed such—facts from the plaintiff.
The defendant ted the plaintiff to believe that he, the defendant, then had in his office legal business of such a volume that plaintiffs share fof the net profits of the ce-partner~ ship would average Shanghai $1,000 per month during the first year, the complaint alleges, 'The complaint further alleges that the plaintiff, believing that the agree~ ment was in every respect valid, per formed the duties and obligations Imposed upon him by the agreement and that it was not until May' 16, 1997 that the plaintiff, on seeking tegal advice, discovered that the agreement "was invalid and unenforceable,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.