The Principal is to be distrained to abide by what has been done by his Attorney, whether it be so done by Judgment or by Concord. But what must be done, if the Principal is incompetent to pay, and has nothing whereby he can be distrained, although the Attorney has? The Attorney, indeed, must not be distrained. CHAP. V. The principle that we have just laid down, that no one, unless present in Court, can effectually put another in his place, seems contrary to what is contained in the first Book, upon the doctrine of Essoins.[419] For, it is there stated, that if any one should, after his third Essoin, send an Attorney, whoever he happen to be, with Letters, he should be received in Court. But this happens by force of the Judgment. A different Rule prevails where, urged by an order of the Court, or by a Distress, a person prays to put another in his place in a Suit, to gain or lose for him. It should also be observed, that Abbots and Priors of Canons Regular are received in Court, upon their own authority, without even the Letters of their Convents. [Footnote 419: L. 1. c. 12.] Other Priors, whether of Canons or Monks, if Cellarii[420] even though Aliens, are by no means to be admitted in Court, without the Letters of their Abbot or Grand Prior.[421] The Master of the Knight-Templars and the Chief Prior of the Hospital of Jerusalem[422] are also received upon their own authority; but none of their Orders of a Rank inferior to them are in the habit of being received. When one or more have been substituted in Court to conduct a Suit for another, in the manner before mentioned, whether the one can delegate his authority to another, or whether one of the two can nominate the other, or a third, in his place, or in that of his Principal, to gain or lose for him in that Suit, are points at least questionable.[423] [Footnote 420: I have retained the original word, not merely because I know of no word answering to the complex idea of _Skene_, but that it is very questionable, whether Skene be correct. He thus interprets the word—“If they dwell in cells, separate from abbies or monasteries.” (Reg. Maj. L. 3. c. 18.) From other authorities, I should rather have inferred, that the _cellarii_ were a species of monks, invested with the power of providing for their Brethren, and regulating the internal part of their monasteries. But this again is with difficulty to be reconciled to the terms, in which one of them is spoken of—_secundus pater in monasterio_, unless we concur with Spelman, who says, when speaking of the word, _crevisse videtur in amplitudinem_. (Vide Spelman. Gloss, ad voc.)] [Footnote 421: The Regiam Majestatem, on the contrary, asserts, that they shall be received, without the Letter of their Abbot or Grand Prior. (L. 3. c. 18.)] [Footnote 422: Of these Orders the Reader will find some mention in 2 Inst. 431.]