then both the disseisor and the substitute must be named in the writ, since the substitute  is bound to restore, [and to the penalty] if he avows the act of the deposed  abbot,1 and the deposed abbot to the penalty. If he was substituted after impetration,  before the taking of the assise, then though he is not named in the writ he will be  bound [to restore],2since the thing was made litigious by impetration before the  creation of the second abbot,3 [and to the penalty] according as he has or has not  avowed the act of his predecessor. If no one has been substituted before the taking of  the assise, let the assise then proceed against the deposed abbot, by a writ phrased in  this way, that such one, canon, (or monk) formerly abbot etc.4 If an abbot has  been substituted before impetration, then that such a one, monk, formerly abbot,  and such a one put in his place etc. If the disseisor changes his dignity, let mention be  made in the writ of his [new] dignity. If the abbot or prior who committed the disseisin  dies, before impetration or after, whether before the creation of a new abbot or  after, and whether the name of the deceased is expressed in the writ or not, in an  action of disseisin the writ falls, and the assise is extinguished to the extent that it is  penal,5 but is good, with respect to the abbot to be substituted to the extent that it is  restitutory, without regard to whether the writ was impetrated against the former  incumbent in the name of the dignity only or under both his own name and that of the  dignity.6 Similarly, if an abbot-plaintiff dies, the writ impetrated in his name falls,  [because there will be no one to answer if there is no one to complain,] since the injuria  is personal.7 But if it is impetrated against an abbot in a proprietary action, or in a  possessory action which is not penal, as in an assise of mortdancestor, and the abbottenant  dies, and the writ is impetrated against him in the name of his dignity or office  only, not in his own name, the writ impetrated in the name of the predecessor will  always be good against the successor,8 because, with respect to the name of the  dignity, they are the same person, because the dignity is not changed because of the  diversity of persons.9 But if it was impetrated against him both in his own name and  that of the dignity, whether the successor has the same10 name as his predecessor or a  different one, the writ falls,11 because though the name is the same there is a difference,  because of the diversity of persons,12 though the contrary may be seen, as where a  father was called Henry and a son or a successor by the same name.13 If the writ is  impetrated against a predecessor who has been deposed, it is good against the substitute,  whether drawn in the name of the dignity only or in both, because he could  be deposed to evade it.
The exception against the person of the plaintiff; first as to status.
 If there is no exception to be raised against the writ, since it is completely satisfactory,  not erased in a critical part, though [it may be] in the statement [of law, not] of fact,14  not crossed through or defective in any other way, and in its original form, when the  plaintiff's intentio has been put forward and supported