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.Summary of this case from Gilmore v. Ham
Argued October 15, 1886
Decided November 23, 1886
P.V.R. Stanton for appellants.
Jesse Johnson for respondents.
EARL, J., reads for affirmance.