If, after summons or other process issued out of the Court of Chancery, any defendant therein named does not appear in obedience to the process and according to the rules of such Court, the Court may, on affidavit that such defendant is out of the State, or cannot be found to be served with process and that there is just ground to believe that the defendant intentionally avoids such service, make an order for his or her appearance on a certain day and publish such order as the Court directs not less than once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. If the defendant does not appear, after such publication, according to the order, the Court may enter judgment by default against the nonappearing defendant, and may thereupon issue process to compel the performance either by seizure of the real and personal property of such defendant or part thereof, sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s demand, or by causing possession of the estate, or effects, demanded by the complaint, to be delivered to the plaintiff, or otherwise, as the case requires. The Court may also order the plaintiff to be paid the demand out of any property so seized, upon plaintiff’s giving approved security, in a sufficient sum, to abide any order of the Court for the restitution thereof upon the defendant’s appearing to defend the action, and paying such costs as the Court shall order. If such security is not given, the property seized, or whereof possession is ordered to be delivered, shall remain under the direction of the Court in the hands of a receiver or otherwise, until the defendant’s appearance, or until such order is made therein as the Court deems is just.
Code 1852,
§
1938;
17 Del. Laws, c. 215;
Code 1915,
§
3850;
34 Del. Laws, c. 216,
§
2;
35 Del. Laws, c. 217;
36 Del. Laws, c. 268,
§
1;
Code 1935,
§
4374;
10 Del. C. 1953,
§
365;
70 Del. Laws, c. 186,
§
1;
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1953–2025 · leading case:
Jacobs v. Tenney, 316 F. Supp. 151 (D. Del. 1970).
Jacobs v. Tenney, 316 F. Supp. 151 (D. Del. 1970).
· cites it 5× “, and 10 Del. C. §§ 365 and 366. Whether a default should be entered against any of these defendants depends upon whether proper service has been perfected against them.”
Bennett v. Breuil Petroleum Corp., 99 A.2d 236 (Del. Ch. 1953).
“See 10 Del.C. § 365. It follows that the defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment must be denied.”
Barber-Greene Co. v. Walco Nat'l Corp., 428 F. Supp. 567 (D. Del. 1977).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiff moved for substituted service pursuant to 10 Del.C. § 365 and sequestration pursuant to 10 Del.”
Arden-Mayfair, Inc. v. Louart Corp., 434 F. Supp. 580 (D. Del. 1977).
“1977), the Court lacked jurisdiction due to the impropriety of substituted service under 10 Del.C. § 365. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Remand.”
British-Am. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Lee, 403 F. Supp. 31 (D. Del. 1975).
“2 Property 3 belonging to the defendants and having a situs in Delaware, was sequestered and attached pursuant to 10 Del.C. § 365 and § 3506; Del.Ch. Rule 4(db); Del.”
Kearney v. Dollar, 111 F. Supp. 738 (D. Del. 1953).
“1 The action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware allegedly is brought pursuant to the provisions of Section 4374 of the Revised Code of Delaware 1935, being Section 8 of Chapter 117 (10 Del.C. §§ 365, 366). In the State Court of Chancery the writ of summons was…”
Abercrombie v. Davies, 118 A.2d 358 (Del. Ch. 1955).
“The moving defendants were not served personally but were served pursuant to 10 Del.C. § 365. This statute gives this Court jurisdiction to decide disputes concerning subject matter under its jurisdiction.”
Winitz v. Kline, 288 A.2d 456 (Del. Ch. 1971).
“10 Del.C. § 365 states: “If, after summons .”
Townsend Corp. of Am. v. Davidson, 181 A.2d 219 (Del. Ch. 1962).
“Defendants assert that they are non-residents who elected to appear generally to litigate "the cause" as asserted in the complaint. Defendants concede that were they residents the complaint could be amended generally if the court so allowed.”
Haas v. Haas, 119 A.2d 358 (Del. Ch. 1955).
“This Court therefore still has the right to determine the ownership of stock of Delaware corporations without physical seizure of the certificate.”
Istituto Bancario Italiano SpA v. Hunter Eng'g Co., 428 A.2d 19 (Del. Ch. 1981).
“The defendant Niederer, for his part, has moved to dismiss the complaint as to him and to quash service of. process purportedly made on him under the provisions of 10 Del.”
Goldhar v. Rosenfeld, 149 A.2d 753 (Del. 1959).
“of the corporation, yet it is not necessary that all wrongdoers be named when liability is joint and several; (3) That if plaintiff has sought relief to which he is not entitled, an opportunity to amend the complaint and add or drop parties should be afforded; (4) That, because…”
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.