(c) Settling priorities.

The priorities inter se of holders of liens, charges or encumbrances will usually depend upon the dates on which the claims were registered (b), and the priorities of all parties who prove

(y) Sterling v. Riley, 1862, 9 Gr. 343.

(z) See Holmested & Langton, Forms and Precedents, 2nd ed., nos. 1026, 1027 and 1028. Other forms are nos. 1024, 1025 (affidavit by mortgagee not in possession), 1029, 978 (affidavit by subsequent encumbrancer), 1030 (affidavit by execution creditor).

(a) As to what costs are taxable by the mortgagee against the mortgagor, see chapter 30, Costs.

(b) See chapter 8, The Registry Act, chapter 9, Consolidation their claims in the master's office will be stated in the master's report (c).

Where there was a dispute between two persons as to who was entitled to an encumbrance, and there were questions which the master was not competent to decide or which could not conveniently be decided in the master's office, it was held that the master's proper course was to report that the encumbrance was a valid charge, to find its priority, to state who claimed to be entitled to it, and to leave the respective claimants to take such proceedings to settle their respective rights as they might be advised (d). A party may, before the report is made, appeal from the ruling of the master as to'the admissibility of evidence (e) or as to the principle upon which the mortgage account should be taken (f).

(d) Appointment of time and place for redemption. It is provided by rule 489 as follows:

489. In mortgage actions the period allowed for redemption in the' first place shall, be six months and when it becomes necessary to fix a date for redemption after the lapse of the first period the further time allowed shall be one month.

The master should appoint a day for redemption (g) but if he omits to do so an order appointing a day may be made in chambers (h). If subsequent encumbrancers have proved their claims in the master's office, the practice under a judg-menffor foreclosure in Ontario is in the first instance to apand Tacking, and chapter 10, The Land Titles Acts. These chapters include a discussion of the relative priorities of mortgages, executions and mechanics liens.

(c) As to the master's report, see Sec. 240, infra.

(d) McDonald v. Wright, 1866, 12 Gr. 552.

(e) McDonald v. Wright, supra.

(f) Court v. Holland, 1881, 29 Gr. 19.

(g) Care should be taken not to appoint a Sunday or other non-juridical day. Holcumb v. Leach, 1852, 3 Gr. 449. (h) King v. Connor, 1863, 10 Gr. 364.

point a day six months in the future for redemption by the first subsequent encumbrancer, and if he fails to redeem then to appoint a day for redemption by the next subsequent encumbrancer, and so on successively, each encumbrancer on failing to redeem being foreclosed (i). If no subsequent encumbrancer proves his claim a day is appointed for redemption by the owner of the ultimate equity of redemption.

In England (j) the tendency of the court is to give one period for redemption, and not to allow successive opportunities to redeem, but the persons who have a subsequent right of redemption may according to priority be allowed further periods to redeem (k). Where, however, there are conflicting claims as to priority among several subsequent encumbranc-ers, one day only will be allowed to all the defendants without prejudice to their priorities inter se (l).

The mortgagor is not entitled to more than one period of six months for redemption, and successive periods will not as a rule be granted at his request, although they may be granted at the request of subsequent encumbrancers. In Platt v. Mendel (m) Chitty, J. said:

"It is an anomaly to say that the mortgagor by any dealings with the equity of redemption subsequent to the first mortgage should be able to gain for himself a right to a further time to redeem."

Where portions of the mortgaged lands are conveyed away by the mortgagor, only one day for payment will be given to all the persons interested in the equity of redemption (n), but where a mortgage provides that in case of sale the mortgagee on receipt or tender of a certain proportion of the purchase money shall release the part sold from the mortgage,, each purchaser is entitled to redeem his own part, on payment of the stipulated proportion of the money, and the master should appoint one day for each of the several purchasers to redeem his respective portion (o).

(i) Infra, Sec. 241. Under a judgment for sale the practice is to allow one period not successive periods for redemption. See Sec. 245, infra.

(j) See 2 W. & T.L.C. Eq. 57, 58.

(k) Smithett v. Hesketh, 1890, 44 Ch.D. 161. In Manitoba it was held that only one period of six months should be allowed for redemption to the mortgagor and subsequent incumbrancers, the English practice being followed in preference to that of the Ontario courts: Rice v. Murray, 1884, 2 M.R. 37.

(l) Bartiett v. Rees, 1871, L.R. 12 Eq. 395; Piatt v. Mendel, 1884, 27 Ch.D. 246; Smithett v. Hesketh, 1890, 44 Ch.D. 161.

(m) 1884, 27 Ch.D. 246.

A subsequent encumbrancer and all persons claiming under him are entitled to but one period of redemption (p).

If two or more execution creditors are made parties in the master's office and prove their claims, they are not entitled to successive periods for redemption, and one day will be appointed for redemption by both or all of them (q), unless an encumbrance intervenes. In the event of an encumbrance intervening, a day will be appointed for redemption by the prior execution creditors, then a day for redemption by the intermediate encumbrancer, and then a day for redemption by the subsequent execution creditors.

It is provided in Ontario by rule 430 as follows:

430.-(1) Where the master is directed to appoint money to be paid at some time and place, he shall appoint the same to be paid into some bank to the joint credit of the party to whom the same is made payable and the accountant; the party to whom the same is made payable may name the bank into which he desires the same to be paid.

(2) Where, money is paid into a bank, in pursuance of such appointment, the party paying may pay the same either to the credit of the party to whom the same is made payable, or to the joint credit of the party and the accountant; and if the same be paid to the sole credit of the party, such party shall be entitled to receive the same without order.

(n) Hill v. Forsyth, 1859, 7 Gr. 461.

(o) Davis v. White, 1869, 16 Gr. 312.

(p) Loveday v. Chapman, 1875, 32 L.T. 689; Beevor v. Luck, 1867, L.R. 4 Eq. 537.

(q) Bates v. Hillcoat, 1852, 16 Beav. 139; Ardagh v. Wilson, 1867, 1 U.C. Ch. Ch. 389. Apparently the older practice in Upper Can-

(3) When money is paid to the joint credit of the accountant and the party entitled, the accountant shall sign the cheque for payment out upon the production of the consent of the party paying In, duly verified, or of his solicitor, or in the absence of such consent upon the order of a judge.