Michael Westropp, C.J.
1. We are of opinion that the agreement was executed without consideration, and thus being a 'nudum pactum,' the suit founded upon it is unsustainable. The plaintiff, having accepted a vakalatnama from the defendants upwards of two months previously to the execution of the agreement, was already bound to render his best services as a pleader to them in suit No. 723 of 1875, and had, as appears from the agreement itself, accepted that vakalatnama upon the terms of receiving him usual fee as a pleader. It must not, however, be supposed that we regard the appearance of that circumstance on the face of the agreement as a matter of importance. It is one which, in the absence of any express stipulation to the contrary, the law would imply when a pleader is retained by a party to a suit. There was no fresh consideration proceeding from the plaintiff when he obtained the agreement of the 16th October; He could not be more firmly bound by it to render to the defendants his professional services than he already was by the acceptance of the vakalatnama. It may be noted, too, that the agreement, appropriately enough, describes itself as an inam chithi. Not, indeed, that this is of any importance, inasmuch as, even if this were not so, it would be sufficiently manifest that the promise to pay the sum of Rs. 61, in addition to the ordinary fee and earnest money mentioned in the agreement, was utterly without consideration. The District Judge should be informed that the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed with costs.