When the defendant is not a resident or inhabitant of this state and has estate within the same which has been attached, a copy of the process and complaint, with a return describing the estate attached, shall be left by the officer with the agent or attorney of the defendant in this state if known; and when land is attached, a like copy shall be left in the office of the town clerk of the town where the land lies. In addition, the court to which such action is returnable, or any judge, clerk or assistant clerk thereof shall make such order of notice to the defendant as is deemed reasonable to apprise him of the institution or pendency of such complaint and attachment. Such notice, having been given and proved, shall be deemed sufficient service of process in such action, and such attachment shall thereupon become effective against such estate and the defendant in such action.

Cited. 31 Conn. 396. When administrator, rather than his tenant, should receive a copy of process. 56 C. 115. Cited. Id., 343; 71 C. 152. Statute must be strictly followed. 75 C. 656; 91 Conn. 571. Does not apply to foreign attachment; 79 C. 17; or attachment of stock of a corporation. 84 C. 625. Appearance as waiving defects; 4 Cranch 421; or absence of legal service. 90 Conn. 293; 96 Conn. 266. Where agent in charge of property and no copy of process is served upon him, attachment is invalid. 139 Conn. 506. Method of attachment must be followed strictly and facts showing compliance must appear of record. 147 C. 238. Cited. 192 Conn. 10. Cited. 6 Conn.App. 591. Under section, claimant is not time-barred until he knows, or should have known, the identity of the negligent person who caused his injury to occur. 75 CA 560. Statute being one in derogation of the common law, it is to be strictly interpreted and construed; waiver of defendant of the formality of process does not validate the attachment. 3 CS 407. Cited. 6 CS 114; 9 CS 521. Although an action for legal separation is in personam, if the accompanying constructive attachment of property in the court’s jurisdiction is properly made at the outset of the action, the action becomes quasi in rem and personal service of process need not be made. 26 Conn.Supp. 284, 290. Where service of process was made on plaintiff who initiated the attachment because she was “in charge or possession” of the property involved, defendant claimed the General Assembly did not intend such service to be valid because the person served was not responsible to defendant; although such a service might be considered improper on other grounds, under statute, there is nothing to show that the General Assembly intended anything other than what statute provides for. Id., 289. No quasi in rem jurisdiction is obtained over nonresident unless statute is strictly complied with and, absent an order of notice by court and service on defendant’s attorney in this state, jurisdiction was not obtained. 28 CS 233.