Proceedings in ejectment in the State of Michigan are wholly statutory,34 and

31. Lambton Investment Co. v. Adams, 132 Mich. 350. Old Second National Bank v. Sav. Bk., 115. 548; Curry v. Curry, 213 N. W. 309.

Where a vendor filed a bill in equity to foreclose a vendor's lien for the contract price, the Supreme Court held that the effect of the notice of forfeiture was nullified by the institution of such proceedings.

32. Cummings & Beechers supplement section 1375, Public Acts 1917, No. 243, provides that no writ of restitution will issue in summary proceedings upon any executory contract for the purchase of real estate for a period of thirty days after judgment, and then not at all if the defendant shall pay the amount found due on the contract together with the costs to the plain tiff.

33. Ejectment involves the legal title only and not equitable interests or claims. Ryder v. Flanders, 30 Mich. 336; Whiting v. Butler, 29 Mich. 122; Conrad v. Long, 33 Mich., 78; Jeffrey v. Hursh, 42 Mich. 563; Buell v. Irwin, 24 Mich. 145; Harrett v. Kinney, 44 Mich. 457; Van Auken v. Livingston, 34 Mich. 384; Moran v. Moran, 106 Mich. 12; Mich. L. & I. Co. v. Thoney, 89 Mich. 231; Paldi v. Paldi, 95 Mich. 410; Geiges v. Greiner, 68 Mich. 153; Shaw v. Hill. 83 Mich. 327; Yale v. Stevenson, 58 Mich. 537. See Nims v. Sherman, 43 Mich. 45; White v. Hapeman, 43 Mich. 267.

34. The action of ejectment is governed by Compiled Laws (1915), (1915), Sec. 13168-13228, inclusive.

radical changes have been made in the proceedings by recent statutes. The principal changes are:

1. A suit in ejectment is now commenced in the same manner as personal actions, i. e., either by a notice to plead attached to the declaration or by the issuance and service of a summons.35

2. The use of fictitious names of the plaintiff or defendant has been abolished.36

3. The defendant no longer has a new trial as a matter of right.37

4. Where no personal service has been had upon the defendant or no appearance has been entered in the case by the defendant, the judgment in ejectment becomes conclusive after three years.38

Other changes in regard to declarations will be noted in the following section:

If the premises for which the action is brought to recover are actually occupied by any person, such actual occupant must be named as a defendant, but if not so occupied, then the action must be brought against some person exercising acts of ownership on the premises claimed or claiming title thereto or some interest therein.39

It has been held that mortgagees before foreclosure and sale are not proper parties defendant;40 and that a wife is not a necessary party where the homestead is not concerned.41 But where the action concerns the recovery of a homestead, then the wife is a necessary party.42

Where, however, the plaintiff is proceeding in ejectment after the foreclosure of a mortgage, the mortgagee should be

35. Compiled Laws (1915), Sec. 13172.

36. Compiled Laws (1915), Sec. 13173.

37. Compiled Laws (1915), Sec. 13197.

38. Compiled Laws (1915), Sec. 13198.

39. Compiled Laws (1915), Sec. 13171.

40. Dawson v. Peter, 119 Mich. 281.

41. Bunce v. Bidwell, 43 Mich. 542.

42. Kalkes v. Stormes, 93 Mich. 480; Hodson v. Van Fossen, 26 Mich. 68; Henry v. Gregory, 29 Mich. 68; Rowe v. Kellogg, 54 Mich. 206; Sayles v. Curtis, 45 Mich. 279; Haviland v. Chase, 116 Mich. 216.

made a party defendant.43 Both landlord and tenant are proper defendants.44

Where the plaintiff fails to join one who occupies a distinct portion of the premises, recovery as to that portion will be excluded.45

The legal interest mentioned in the statute means a legal interest and not a mere equitable.46

An action in ejectment is not barred after ten years occupancy if it does not appear that the defendant's possession was adverse to the plaintiff.47