the king has given him leave to plead, because, just as an Englishman is not heard  impleading any one with respect to lands and tenements in France, so an alien or  Frenchman who is in the allegiance of the king of France [and resident]1 in France  ought not to be heard pleading in England. There are however, some who are in the  allegiance of both and always were, before the loss of Normandy and after, and who  plead here and there because they are in the allegiance of both, as William the earl  Marshal dwelling in England and Michael de Fiennes dwelling in France and many  others.2 If war occurs between the kings, each of them remains personally with the  king to whom he has done liege homage and does his servitium debitum to him with  whom he does not stand in the person [of an attorney].3
Exception against a demandant because his status is in doubt, for several reasons.
 An exception arising from the person of the demandant also lies for a tenant because  of his uncertain status and the doubtful outcome of some matter. A man's status may  be uncertain in many ways, because of a change of dignity, as where he is established  in one dignity and has been chosen or proposed for another; when he has given his  assent, his status is in suspense until he is confirmed, and so nothing done with him,  while his status is pending, can be sure. The same may be said if one is established in a  dignity and is involved in an action of deposition, whether in accordance with his  deserts or not, and when he has been deposed, justly or unjustly, has appealed;  during the appeal no suit against him is valid, because if his deposition is upheld,  everything must be revoked and thus the judgment illusory. A man's status may  also be in doubt because of a criminal action brought against him, where danger of  life or members is involved: he is not bound to answer in a civil case (nor will an answer  be made him) until he has succeeded in defending himself in the criminal case or  failed to do so, for if action were first taken in the civil case and he were then convicted  of the crime, it would have to relate back to the time of the crime committed,  and thus whatever was done in the interval between the commission of the crime and  the man's conviction must be revoked.4 Action cannot therefore he taken against  such men until their status is made certain, as above more fully [in the portion] on  the pleas of the crown. With respect to deposition [the case] of the bishop of Bath and  the abbot of Glastonbury before the justices of the Bench may be cited as an example.5