[Footnote 416: Here is another instance of confusion, arising from the inaccurate manner in which these letters are inserted!] CHAP. III. When any one, therefore, according to the form, before mentioned, is put in the place of another in any suit, it may be asked, whether Essoins shall hold with reference to the person of the Attorney only, or the person of his Principal only, or with regard to both of them? And, indeed, the Essoins of the Attorney himself only shall in such case be allowed, until his appointment is revoked.[417] When any one, so put in the place of another in Court, answer to the suit, and does that which appertains to him, it may be asked, whether his Principal can at his pleasure remove him, and substitute another Attorney, especially if any great degree of Enmity should subsequently arise between them? [Footnote 417: “The Essoin of the Procurator only shall have place, until the procuratory be revoked.” (Reg. Maj. L. 3. c. 16.) Mr. Reeves appears to have viewed the passage of the Text in a different light. (Vide Hist. Eng. Law. 1. 170.)] That the Principal himself, indeed, may follow up the Suit, the Attorney being removed, is unquestionable; because every Man is understood to put another in his place, under the tacit condition, that he himself cannot be present. The prevailing practice permits a Principal to remove such Attorney, in any part of the Suit, and also to replace him by substituting another in Court, in the manner before mentioned. A Father may thus substitute his Son, and vice versa: one stranger may also substitute another; and a Wife her husband. When a Husband, put in the place of his Wife in a suit concerning her marriage-hood or Dower, should lose any part of the property of his Wife, or should, by a Judgment or a Concord, remit any right of the Wife, whether, it may be asked, can the Wife herself again agitate the question, or whether is she absolutely bound, after the death of her Husband, to abide by his Act? It does not seem that the woman in such a case ought, by the Act of her Husband, to lose any part of her right; because, whilst in the power of her Husband, she can in no measure oppose or controvert his Will, and, therefore, she could not, contrary to his pleasure, look into her rights.[418] But, on the other hand, it may be contended, that those Acts which are transacted in the King’s Court, ought to be held settled and unalterable. [Footnote 418: Vide Mirror, c. 5. s. 5.—Ante 97. Not. 3. and M. Houard’s Traités sur les Coutumes Anglo-Norm. Tom. 1. 451. where he adopts the same reading, as I contend for, and observes that under the ancient Norman Custumary the wife could not reclaim her Dower.] CHAP. IV.