(at least prior to more recent reforms). Originally, a mortgage
was, in form, a legal conveyance of title that was subject to an
equitable right to the return of title on certain conditions (timely
payment of the debt). Default in the payment of the debt when
due gave rise to two possible enforcement routes by the creditor:
sale or foreclosure. Both of these consequences of mortgage
default have long since been heavily circumscribed by statute, but
the original equitable rules were designed to provide the debtor
with relief from the harshness of those rules at a time where
statutory reforms in the area were in their infancy. Viewed in this
light, it might be considered that the payment of extra interest
was intended to compensate for the loss of the accrued right to
foreclose as much as it was intended to reflect the time necessary
to find a new mortgage to invest in.
 A distribution of proceeds by a receiver to entitled parties
arising from a court-ordered sale of land does not involve any
party seeking relief from anything. It falls completely outside of
the range of circumstances contemplated by s. 17.
 Second, the language employed by the legislature does not
compel a distinction between the two types of receivers. Section
17 confers a right upon a defined, limited set of persons being
“the mortgagor or person entitled to make such payment”
(emphasis added). The right conferred is the right “at any time,
upon payment of three months interest on the principal money so
in arrear, [to] pay the same” (emphasis added).
 The secured creditor selling the land or his or her
appointed agent is certainly not a “mortgagor or person entitled
to make such payment”, a court-appointed receiver is not either.
The court-appointed receiver is not the agent of the appointing
creditor as the applicant correctly argued. However, such a receiver
is not the agent of the debtor or any subsequent mortgagee either.
The receiver is not “entitled” to pay a sum of money. The receiver
has no beneficial interest in the money nor did it have an interest
in the land being sold.
 The mortgage was not discharged, it was vested off title.
The proceeds were held by the receiver pending further order and
were then distributed by court order. The receiver was not a person “entitled” to pay the arrears, the receiver was directed to pay
the proceeds after the owner thereof was identified. In directing
the receiver to pay over proceeds of a sale, the court is making
a determination of the secured creditor’s entitlement to receive
the funds, not a determination of the receiver’s entitlement
 The statute does not apply to a payment of proceeds of sale
to an entitled secured creditor by a court-appointed receiver on