Although a mortgagor cannot, at the time of the making of the mortgage and as part of the mortgage transaction, contract himself out of his equity of redemption (p), he may agree that the mortgage shall be irredeemable for a reasonable period (q). The equity of redemption may also be barred by lapse of time (r), or extinguished by foreclosure or by sale under order of the court (s) or by sale under the power of sale (t).

Furthermore a mortgagor may, by a separate and inde-dendent transaction subsequent to the making of the mortgage, sell or release his equity of redemption to the mortgagee, or give the mortgagee the option of purchasing the mortgaged property and thus in effect deprive himself of his right to redeem (u). Prima facie, if a mortgagee takes a release of the equity of redemption, the mortgage debt is deemed to be satisfied (v). The release by the mortgagee of the debt is sufficient consideration for the release by the mortgagor of the equity of redemption. The relation of the parties is that of vendor and purchaser and the onus of justifying the transaction is not upon the mortgagee (w).

(n) See chapter 25, Action for Redemption, Sec. 251. (o) The doctrine of consolidation is an illustration. See chapter 9, Consolidation and Tacking, Sec. 81. (p) See Sec. 23, supra.

(q) See chapter 25, Action for Redemption. (r) See chapter 26, Limitation of Actions, (s) See chapter 24, Action for Foreclosure or Sale, (t) See chapter 31, Sale under Power of Sale.

(u) The general proposition was stated in a case in which the House of Lords affirmed the finding of fact of the Court of Appeal that the agreement for the option was really a separate transaction from the mortgage transaction. The members of the Court of Appeal were careful to dissociate themselves from the opinion expressed by Buckley, J., that the transactions were not separate and that the agreement for the option was nevertheless valid as a conditional sale. Reeve v. Lisle, [1902] A.C. 401, affirming Lisle v. Reeve, [1902] 1 Ch. 53.

(v) British and Canadian Loan and Investment Co. v. Williams, 1888, 15 O.R. 366; North of Scotland Mortgage Co. v. Udell, 1882, 46 U.C.R. 511.

(w) Knight v. Marjoribanks, 1849, 2 Mac. & G. 10; Melbourne Banking Corporation v. Brougham, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 307. The transaction may, however, be impeached in special circumstances, as, e.g., on the ground of inequality, pressure or undervalue. Ford v. Older, 1867, L.R. 3 Eq. 461.