Suppose that when an attorney has been appointed he dies before the day given in  court and the principal lord essoins himself on the day given, no mention made of  the death of the attorney, and the justices in ignorance of his death decide that the  essoin is void because he appointed an attorney, and so proceed to default. If the  lord afterwards [appears] on his day, by excusing his absence on the other day and  alleging the death of the attorney as the reason for his absence, he will not be excused,  though he could be if together with his own essoin he had caused the attorney  to be essoined of death. Thus it may be seen that an essoin does not lie in the person  of the lord when he has appointed an attorney except after he has removed the  attorney or it is established that he is dead. Suppose that when one has appointed  an attorney he essoins himself on the first day of summons and the attorney does so  on the second or third; the essoin of the lord will be void, because he appointed an  attorney and proceedings will have to be taken on the default of the attorney on  the day given him by the essoiner, if the demandant holds himself to the default,  because the essoin of the lord does not defend the first day, since it is null.
If the attorney dies while the principal lord of the suit is upon pilgrimage.
 A certain person anticipated by a summons when he wished to set out upon a pilgrimage  to the Holy Land in a general passage appointed two attorneys or several,  and while he was upon his pilgrimage the attorneys die, the demandant offers himself  for the suit on the day and the tenant does not come nor does he have an  attorney; quaere what the law is, since there is nothing which may be blamed on the  tenant. The counsel of the court was that the attorneys be essoined of death, and  so the plea will remain sine die until the return of the principal lord. The case of  Peter des Roches, late bishop of Winchester, who set out for the Holy Land in a  general passage.1 And what was said of a pilgrimage of this kind ought to be observed  in other pilgrimages, as to St. James or elsewhere. Suppose that someone  fraudulently essoins himself or his attorney of death though he is alive; if it is  afterwards established that he is alive, let the case be resummoned in the same state  as it was on the day the essoin was interposed, by these words, so that that plea  then be there in the same state in which it was when it remained without day since  the aforesaid fraudulently essoined himself of death who is still alive as it is said.  In that case, unless he can cure the default he will lose by judgment, as [in the roll]  of Michaelmas term in the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth years of king  Henry in the county of Cambridge, [the case] of one Osbert.2
1. C.R.R., xiii, no. 551 (?). Bp. returned to Winchester on 1 Aug. 1231; d. 12 June 1238