The service of a writ of summons shall be made by the officer reading it and the complaint accompanying it in the hearing of the defendant or by leaving an attested copy thereof with him or at his usual place of abode. When service is made by leaving an attested copy at the defendant's usual place of abode, the officer making service shall note in his return the address at which such attested copy was left.
(1949 Rev., S. 7773; 1967, P.A. 91.)
History: 1967 act required officer making service to make note of address where attested copy was left if service is made by leaving copy at defendant's usual place of abode.
Married woman could not accept service under former law; 3 C. 258; nor an attorney, without special authority. 1 R. 406; 28 C. 563. In suits against joint debtors, each must be served. 4 C. 426. Copy may be left at the house of a convict who is in prison. 11 C. 234. Attachment may be served as a summons. 1 R. 54; Id., 128. Suits take effect from the time of their service upon defendant, not from the date of process. 41 C. 485. Officer cannot use force merely to identify the person to be served. 49 C. 64. Officer must personally sign return on copy left with defendant. Id., 248. A nonresident defendant attending trial here is privileged from the service of process upon him by summons in a civil action; 51 C. 595; so is a nonresident coming here to testify; 82 C. 589. One illegally brought within precinct of officer. 85 C. 333. Temporary presence of one in jurisdiction ordinarily is sufficient. 27 C. 9; 67 C. 104. Meaning of “usual place of abode”. 92 C. 57; 105 C. 569. No service of writ of summons is valid unless accompanied by complaint; 97 C. 400; purpose of requirement is to insure actual notice. 108 C. 16. Service of civil process on defendant fraudulently induced to come within its reach. 99 C. 98. Nonresident defendant in a criminal action is not exempt from service of process, even though brought within jurisdiction by force; facts held to show no such fraud. 102 C. 13. Service by leaving writ in common hall of two-family house is void. 108 C. 13. Cited. 178 C. 472; 182 C. 14; 195 C. 191; 212 C. 157.
Cited. 5 CA 556.
Unattested copy of writ left at abode of defendant not proper service; defect may be waived by general appearance. 1 CS 73. Proper method of raising issue of improper service is by motion to dismiss or motion to erase. 2 CS 105. Compared with Sec. 52-62. Id., 134. Cited. 4 CS 138. “Usual place of abode” is connotative of residence only and not domicile. 8 CS 293. Service of writ and complaint was sufficient where it was inserted under the locked front door of the usual place of abode. 10 CS 365. Cited. 11 CS 262. Service upon defendant domiciled within the state but absent from state at time of service is sufficient for a personal judgment. 15 CS 18. What constitutes “usual place of abode”. 24 CS 324. Application to court to examine corporate records must be made by writ, summons and complaint. 25 CS 253. Service made at apartment house is insufficient, must be made at individual apartment in order to be valid. 29 CS 93. Service in motor vehicle civil actions is not completely covered by statute. Id., 227. Cited. 33 CS 554; Id., 678; 40 CS 243; 41 CS 367; 43 CS 10.
Cited. 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 320. In action commenced before effective date of amendment, failure of officer to note in his return the address at which abode service was made not ground for abatement. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 468, 470, 471.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case:
Viera v. Cohen, 927 A.2d 843 (Conn. 2007).
Viera v. Cohen, 927 A.2d 843 (Conn. 2007).
· cites it 4× “V Finally, we address the defendant's claim that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Specifically, the defendant claims that service of process was defective because the plaintiff had not served the defendant either personally or at his usual place of abode,…”
Uyen Phan v. Delgado, 576 A.2d 603 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 3× “389 (1928); General Statutes § 52-54. In order to accomplish that purpose, where the *370 party to be served lives in a multi-family building, service must be made at the apartment actually occupied by the defendant.”
Hartford Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Tucker, 423 A.2d 141 (Conn. 1979).
· cites it 2× “Those defects which are merely voidable may, in the trial court’s discretion, be cured by amendment, and do not require new service and return date, so long as the defendant was not prejudiced.”
EH Inv. Co., LLC v. Chappo LLC, 166 A.3d 800 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “The complaint contains a typographical error, referring to General Statutes § 52-54, rather than General Statutes § 52-564.”
Johnson v. Preleski, 335 Conn. 138 (Conn. 2020).
· cites it 4× “2d 848 (1962) (explaining that, to confer personal jurisdiction on court, process is served either through ‘‘manual delivery or by leaving it at [the defendant’s] usual place of abode’’); see also General Statutes §§ 52-54 and 52-57. 17 The dissent asserts that interpreting the…”
Milgrim v. Deluca, 487 A.2d 522 (Conn. 1985).
· cites it 2× “See General Statutes §§ 52-54, 52-59b (c) through 52-68; Practice Book §§ 199 through 202.”
White-Bowman Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Biafore, 437 A.2d 833 (Conn. 1980).
· cites it 2× “There is no substitute *17 for “in hand” or abode service in accordance with General Statutes § 52-54, where jurisdiction over the person of a resident individual is sought, except with respect to suits for damages caused by motor vehicles.”
Brandriff v. Sellas, 488 A.2d 853 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1985).
· cites it 2× “” According to Stephenson, a new service of the amended writ is necessary. 1 Stephenson, supra.”
Zarillo v. Peck, 366 A.2d 1165 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1976).
· cites it 2× “Section 52-593a, unlike General Statutes § 52-54, the service-of-summons statute, does not spell out how delivery shall be made.”
State v. Burrows, 500 A.2d 970 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Service of a subpoena “upon” a person does not require physical acceptance of it, if the person is given notice of it and its contents.”
Burger v. Frohlich, 235 A.2d 332 (Conn. App. Ct. 1967).
· cites it 3× “91, § 52-54 did not require the officer making service to note in his return the address at which the attested copy was left.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.