In Berl v. Brewster, 1986 WL 12168 (Del. Ch. Ct. 1986), the court discusses defendant's claim that the writ of attachment should be quashed because the subject of the attachment, stock held strictly by defendant's broker, E.F. Hutton, were not located in Delaware. The Court wrote: "in reaching this conclusion, I have accorded little weight to plaintiffs' argument that the trust property is located in this state. The 'location' of certificateless securities held in street name by a broker, no doubt as a book entry, on a depository company's computer, is a highly metaphysical question. The emphasis of Heitner and related cases is on a realistic, not a metaphysical, analysis of purposive connections among a state, a non-resident defendant and the claim. Conversely, defendant's claim that the property seized is not "here" and thus may not be seized is unavailing to him. E.F. Hutton is clearly subject to a judicial order of this Court and it controls the property in question. While the teaching of Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215, 25 S. Ct. 625, 49 L. Ed. 1023 (1905) has now been repudiated (See Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 200-01, 97 S. Ct. 2569, 53 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1977)) insofar as it approved a universally appropriate technique for establishing jurisdiction over a non-resident's interest in a debt, where, as here, sufficient contacts exist for a state to assert in personam jurisdiction with respect to a specific claim, I find nothing in the relevant Supreme Court opinion that suggest that attachment may not be effectively employed by exercising power over a debtor (or other holder of property owed to or belonging to a non-resident) who is subject to the Court's jurisdiction."