138 N.E. 414 (N.Y. 1923)
In August 1917 and January 1918, the plaintiff purchased household furniture from the defendant for $909.25 and took it to his apartment in New York City, giving back two chattel mortgages providing for monthly payments and prohibiting removal without written consent.1
By May 1918 the plaintiff had paid $295. Desiring to move from the city for the summer months and give up his apartment, the plaintiff went to the defendant’s place of business to arrange storage of the furniture until his return.2
It was arranged with the defendant’s creditman McGrath that the plaintiff would send the furniture by his own truck to the defendant’s storehouse and the defendant would keep it free of charge.3 McGrath also promised to insure the furniture for the plaintiff’s benefit, explaining that the plaintiff need not obtain insurance through his own agent because McGrath handled lots of insurance and would include the cost with the next installment.4
The furniture was sent to the storehouse about May 15 and destroyed by fire about June 15, with no insurance placed on it. The plaintiff had never insured the furniture at any time.5
The plaintiff commenced this action in the City Court of the city of New York to recover his loss from the failure to insure, based on the alleged agreement with the creditman.6 The plaintiff was successful in the lower courts, and the Appellate Division certified a question of law for review by this court.7
Whether there was consideration for the alleged agreement made with the defendant’s creditman to insure the furniture?8
A mere agreement to undertake a trust, in futuro, without compensation, it is true, is not obligatory; but when once undertaken, and the trust actually entered upon, the bailee is bound to perform it, according to the terms of his agreement. The confidence placed in him, and his undertaking to execute the trust, raise a sufficient consideration.9
Yes. When McGrath stated that he would insure the furniture it was still in the plaintiff’s possession.10 It was after his statements and promises that the plaintiff sent the furniture to the storehouse.11 The defendant or McGrath entered upon the execution of the trust.12 From this aspect of the case we think there was a consideration for the agreement to insure.13
There was consideration for the agreement to insure.14
Whether the defendant’s creditman had authority to make the contract to insure the furniture?15
We do not find the point raised by any sufficient exception.16
No. As to McGrath’s authority to act in this matter, we do not find the point raised by any sufficient exception.17
The authority issue was not raised by any sufficient exception.18