Del. C. » Title 10 — Procedure · CHAPTER 35. Attachments · Courts and Judicial Procedure
Delaware Code

10 Del. C. § 3502 (2026)

Corporations subject to attachment and garnishment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) All corporations doing business in this State, except as specified in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, are subject to the operations of the attachment laws of this State, as provided in the case of individuals. A corporation shall be liable to be summoned as garnishee.

(b) Banks, trust companies, savings institutions and loan associations, except only as to a wage attachment against the wages of an employee of the bank, trust company, savings institution or loan association, shall not be subject to the operations of the attachment laws of this State.

(c) Insurance companies, except as to moneys due in consequence of the happening of the risk provided for in the policy of insurance or a wage attachment against the wages of an employee of the insurance company, shall not be liable to attachment.

14 Del. Laws, c. 90;  16 Del. Laws, c. 140;  18 Del. Laws, c. 681;  Code 1915, §  4120;  30 Del. Laws, c. 226;  Code 1935, §  4608;  10 Del. C. 1953, §  3502;  52 Del. Laws, c. 341;  65 Del. Laws, c. 49, §  1;  70 Del. Laws, c. 327, §  48; 
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1971–2017 · leading case: Szymanski v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. (In Re Szymanski), 413 B.R. 232 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Szymanski v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. (In Re Szymanski), 413 B.R. 232 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2009). “Therefore, both potential alternative sources of Wacho-via rights are similar to Pennsylvania common law on the key legal issue posed in these disputes.”
Garretson v. Garretson, 306 A.2d 737 (Del. 1973). · cites it 2× “Next, Bank of Delaware and the Amicus Curiae argue that dividends and interest which are held by a bank as Trustee cannot be sequestered by reason of 10 Del.C. § 3502 which provides in part as follows: “All corporations doing business in this State, except banks, savings…”
J. B. G. v. P. J. G., 286 A.2d 256 (Del. Ch. 1971). · cites it 2× “The Bank argues that dividends it receives and any other property which it holds as Trustee cannot be sequestered because of 10 Del.C. § 3502. That statute provides in pertinent part: “All corporations doing business in this State, except banks, savings institutions and loan…”
Wife v. Husband, 286 A.2d 256 (Del. Ch. 1971). · cites it 2× “The Bank argues that dividends it receives and any other property which it holds as Trustee cannot be sequestered because of 10 Del.C. § 3502. That statute provides in pertinent part: "All corporations doing business in this State, except banks, savings institutions and loan…”
Bank of Delaware v. Wilmington Hous. Auth., 352 A.2d 420 (Del. Super. Ct. 1976). · cites it 2× “The Bank relies on 10 Del.C. § 3502 which, inter alia, makes all corporations “except banks, savings institutions and loan associations, .”
Mergenthaler v. Triumph Mortg. Corp. (Del. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “In its first motion, Triumph argues that because “Merrill Lynch Was merged into Bank of America Corporation” on October l, 2013, it is immune from the attachment laws of this State pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 3502(b).3 In its second motion, Triumph argues that the judgment is stale…”
J. B. G. v. P. J. G., 286 A.2d 256 (Del. Ch. 1971). · cites it 2× “The Bank argues that dividends it receives and any other property which it holds as Trustee cannot be sequestered because of 10 Del.C. § 3502. That statute provides in pertinent part: “All corporations doing business in this State, except banks, savings institutions and loan…”
— 10 Del. C. § 3502(b) — 2 cases
Szymanski v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. (In Re Szymanski), 413 B.R. 232 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2009). “Therefore, both potential alternative sources of Wacho-via rights are similar to Pennsylvania common law on the key legal issue posed in these disputes.”
Mergenthaler v. Triumph Mortg. Corp. (Del. Super. Ct. 2017). “In its first motion, Triumph argues that because “Merrill Lynch Was merged into Bank of America Corporation” on October l, 2013, it is immune from the attachment laws of this State pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 3502(b).3 In its second motion, Triumph argues that the judgment is stale…”
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.