In Lammer v. Stoddard (103 N.Y. 672) we described the doctrine as applicable against a trustee of an actual, express and subsisting trust, but held that where the trustee became such by implication or construction the statute ran from the date of the wrong which raised the implication.

In Lammer v. Stoddard the court said (p. 673): "It is undoubtedly generally true that as against a trustee of an actual, express subsisting trust, the statute does not begin to run against the beneficiary until the trustee has openly, to the knowledge of the beneficiary, renounced, disclaimed or repudiated the trust.

In Lammer v. Stoddard (103 N.Y. 672, 673) the court said: "If this were an action to recover the debt evidenced by the bond and mortgage, it is conceded that it would have been barred.