(a) If it appears in any complaint filed in the Court of Chancery that the defendant or any one or more of the defendants is a nonresident of the State, the Court may make an order directing such nonresident defendant or defendants to appear by a day certain to be designated. Such order shall be served on such nonresident defendant or defendants by mail or otherwise, if practicable, and shall be published in such manner as the Court directs, not less than once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. The Court may compel the appearance of the defendant by the seizure of all or any part of his or her property, which property may be sold under the order of the Court to pay the demand of the plaintiff, if the defendant does not appear, or otherwise defaults. Any defendant whose property shall have been so seized and who shall have entered a general appearance in the cause may, upon notice to the plaintiff, petition the Court for an order releasing such property or any part thereof from the seizure. The Court shall release such property unless the plaintiff shall satisfy the Court that because of other circumstances there is a reasonable possibility that such release may render it substantially less likely that plaintiff will obtain satisfaction of any judgment secured. If such petition shall not be granted, or if no such petition shall be filed, such property shall remain subject to seizure and may be sold to satisfy any judgment entered in the cause. The Court may at any time release such property or any part thereof upon the giving of sufficient security.
(b) The Court may make all necessary rules respecting the form of process, the manner of issuance and return thereof, the release of such property from seizure and for the sale of the property so seized, and may require the plaintiff to give approved security to abide any order of the Court respecting the property.
(c) Any transfer or assignment of the property so seized after the seizure thereof shall be void and after the sale of the property is made and confirmed, the purchaser shall be entitled to and have all the right, title and interest of the defendant in and to the property so seized and sold and such sale and confirmation shall transfer to the purchaser all the right, title and interest of the defendant in and to the property as fully as if the defendant had transferred the same to the purchaser in accordance with law.
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,
§
366;
50 Del. Laws, c. 379,
§
1;
70 Del. Laws, c. 186,
§
1;
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
72
cases (
2 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 10× “and 10 Del.C. § 366, which empowered the sequestrator to seize all shares of Class A stock of Omega standing in the names of the nonresident defendants as legal or beneficial owners.”
U. S. Indus., Inc. v. Gregg, 348 F. Supp. 1004 (D. Del. 1972).
· cites it 6× “12 The law of Delaware controls the question of whether any such interest may be sequestered under 10 Del.C. § 366. Cheff v. Athlone Industries, Inc.”
Baker v. Gotz, 387 F. Supp. 1381 (D. Del. 1975).
· cites it 10× “OPINION STEEL, Senior District Judge: Pending for decision are identical motions by nonresident defendants in each of three cases to quash the sequestration of certain property purported to have been made under 10 Del.C. § 366 and Court of Chancery Rule 4(db), 1 Del.”
Greyhound Corp. v. Heitner, 361 A.2d 225 (Del. 1976).
· cites it 3× “The Sequestration Statute, 10 Del.C. § 366, has been an integral part of our law since 1927.”
United States v. M. Jeanne Stone, 59 F.R.D. 260 (D. Del. 1973).
· cites it 12× “In her motion, Stone raises two basic contentions: 1) venue is improper in this Court, and 2) this type of action and the nature of relief sought preclude utilization of the procedures of 10 Del. C. § 366, the Delaware sequestration statute.”
United States v. Est. of Claude Beresford Pearce, 498 F.2d 847 (3rd Cir. 1974).
· cites it 3× “The sole issue with which we deal here is: is the denial of a motion to quash a sequestration order (issued in accordance with 10 Del.C. § 366 1 ) appealable *848 under 28 U.”
Savchuk v. Rush, 272 N.W.2d 888 (Minn. 1978).
· cites it 2× “See, 10 Del.Code Ann. § 366. Although liability is limited to the value of the property seized, potential liability here was $1.”
Baker v. Goetz, 336 F. Supp. 197 (D. Del. 1971).
· cites it 4× “FRCP 4(e) incorporates by reference 10 Del.C. § 366 2 and its implementing Court of Chancery Rule 4(db), Del.”
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes, 185 A.2d 762 (Del. Ch. 1962).
· cites it 12× “Breech in the Ford Motor Company were ordered seized as provided for in Title 10 Del.C. § 366 and Rule 4(dd) of this Court, Del.”
United States v. Sinclair, 347 F. Supp. 1129 (D. Del. 1972).
· cites it 3× “Steel stock from the Estate’s name, the United States concurrently moved for, and was granted, a sequestration order by this Court under authority of 10 Del.C. § 366. 5 The complaint as originally filed named the Estate of Claude Beresford Pearce and U.”
Widder v. Leeds, 317 A.2d 32 (Del. Ch. 1974).
· cites it 3× “The sequestration order, made pursuant to 10 Del.C. § 366 for the purpose of compelling Leeds to appear in this State and to answer the complaint against him, attached a limited partnership interest in Courtland Manor Associates, a Delaware limited partnership.”
— 10 Del. C. § 366(a) — 8 cases
— 10 Del. C. § 366(c) — 1 case
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.