FEDERAL · 28 U.S.C. · Chapter 111
Lien enforcement; absent defendants
28 U.S.C. § 1655
Title28 — Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Chapter111 — GENERAL PROVISIONS
This text of 28 U.S.C. § 1655 (Lien enforcement; absent defendants) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
28 U.S.C. § 1655.
Text
In an action in a district court to enforce any lien upon or claim to, or to remove any incumbrance or lien or cloud upon the title to, real or personal property within the district, where any defendant cannot be served within the State, or does not voluntarily appear, the court may order the absent defendant to appear or plead by a day certain.
Such order shall be served on the absent defendant personally if practicable, wherever found, and also upon the person or persons in possession or charge of such property, if any. Where personal service is not practicable, the order shall be published as the court may direct, not less than once a week for six consecutive weeks.
If an absent defendant does not appear or plead within the time allowed, the court may proceed as if the absent defendant
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Max Daetwyler Corp., a New York Corporation v. R. Meyer, a West German Corporation. Appeal of Rolf Meyer
762 F.2d 290 (Third Circuit, 1985)
Stabilisierungsfonds Fur Wein v. Kaiser Stuhl Wine Distributors Pty. Ltd.
647 F.2d 200 (D.C. Circuit, 1981)
Elmer J. Jonnet v. Dollar Savings Bank of the City of New York
530 F.2d 1123 (Third Circuit, 1976)
Salazar Ex Rel. Salazar v. District of Columbia
633 F.3d 1110 (D.C. Circuit, 2011)
Wells v. Rockefeller
728 F.2d 209 (Third Circuit, 1984)
Anderson v. Benson
117 F. Supp. 765 (D. Nebraska, 1953)
United States v. Balanovski
236 F.2d 298 (Second Circuit, 1956)
Bushman Construction Company v. Air Force Academy Housing, Incorporated
327 F.2d 481 (Tenth Circuit, 1964)
United States v. Klimek
952 F. Supp. 1100 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1997)
A. Alex Shuford, Jr. v. Roy G. Anderson, and Currier & Carlsen, Incorporated, a Corporation
352 F.2d 755 (Tenth Circuit, 1965)
Isaac v. Crichlow
63 V.I. 38 (Superior Court of The Virgin Islands, 2015)
Inland Concrete Enterprises, Inc. v. Kraft
318 F.R.D. 383 (C.D. California, 2016)
The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. United States
331 F.2d 29 (First Circuit, 1964)
United States v. Estate of Swan
441 F.2d 1082 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)
In the Matter of Philip J. Goldberg, Bankrupt-Appellant. Philip J. Goldberg, Bankrupt-Appellant v. Sidney B. Weiner, Creditors-Appellees
480 F.2d 1067 (Ninth Circuit, 1973)
Romero v. Star Markets, Ltd.
922 P.2d 1018 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 1996)
United States v. Leo L. Miroff, Annette Miroff, Husband and Wife and the Central Standard Life Insurance Company
353 F.2d 481 (Seventh Circuit, 1965)
San Rafael Compania Naviera, S.A. v. American Smelting & Refining Co.
327 F.2d 581 (Ninth Circuit, 1964)
Union Camp Corporation v. James E. Dyal, Jr., and John M. Murrell, Additional Leon A. Wilson, Ii, Third Party
460 F.2d 678 (Third Circuit, 1972)
Kitzer v. Phalen Park State Bank of St. Paul
379 F.2d 650 (Eighth Circuit, 1967)
Source Credit
History
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 944.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §118 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §57, 36 Stat. 1102).
Word "action" was substituted for "suit," in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In view of Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permitting service of process anywhere within the territorial limits of the States, the word "State" was substituted for "district" in the first and third paragraphs.
Changes were made in phraseology.
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §118 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §57, 36 Stat. 1102).
Word "action" was substituted for "suit," in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In view of Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permitting service of process anywhere within the territorial limits of the States, the word "State" was substituted for "district" in the first and third paragraphs.
Changes were made in phraseology.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
28 U.S.C. § 1655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/28/1655.