Dist.Ct. did not err in dismissing on statute of limitations grounds plaintiff’s conversion action, alleging that defendant stole plaintiff’s airplane in or before 1984. Instant action was untimely since applicable limitations period was five years, which began in 1985, when plaintiff accused defendant of said theft. Moreover, discovery rule did not require different result, where plaintiff knew by 1985 that his plane had vanished and had taken steps at that time to investigate said loss. Also, plaintiff could not characterize instant alleged theft as continuing violation, since disappearance of plaintiff’s plane was discreet act.
