The rule which prevailed prior to 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 27, that no lapse of time barred the right of the mortgagor to redeem the whole of the mortgaged lands if he held possession of part (t) was abolished by s. 28 of the statute (u). Hence it has been held that where a mortgagee had been in possession of part of the lands for more than 20 years, the right of the mortgagor to redeem that part was barred although he held possession of the remainder of the lands (v).

(q) The statute In question was R.S.B.C. 1897, c. 123, s. 40, similar in terms to R.S.O. 1914, c. 75, s. 20, quoted in Sec. 277, except that the period of limitation in the former statute is 20 years, that in the latter 10 years.

(r) Kirby v. Cowderoy, supra; sed cf. McDonald v. McDonell, 1864, 2 U.C.E. & A. 393.

(s) Campbell v. Imperial Loan Co., 1908, 18 M.R. 144, overruling Rutherford v. Mitchell, 1904, 15 M.R. 390; Creamer v. Gooderham, 1914, 7 S.L.R. 173, 17 D.L.R. 235. If, however, mortgaged lands are left vacant after default, constructive possession is in the mortgagee so as to prevent his right to foreclose from being barred by lapse of time. See Sec. 270, supra.

(t) Rakestraw v. Brewer, 1728, Sel. Cas. Ch. 55, 2 P. Wms. 511.

(u) See now R.S.O. 1914, c. 75, s. 20, in Sec. 277, supra.

On the other hand, if a person has only a partial interest in the equity of redemption, for instance, as tenant, he has a right to pay the whole mortgage debt and receive a conveyance of the mortgaged lands, subject to the rights of redemption of other persons interested in the equity (w). This principle that the equity of redemption is an entirety which cannot be redeemed piecemeal or proportionately has been held to apply even where the person redeeming is entitled only to a share in the equity of redemption and the other persons interested have been barred by the statute of limitations [x).