Huebel v. Baldwin

• Decision Date: 17 February 1923
• Docket Number: No. 5659.,5659.
• Citation: 119 A. 639
• Parties: HUEBEL v. BALDWIN.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

119 A. 639

HUEBEL

v. BALDWIN.

No. 5659.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Feb. 17, 1923.

Exception from Superior Court, Newport County; Antonio A. Capotosto, Judge.

In the matter of the estate of Mrs. Amanda S. Muenchinger, deceased. Proceedings by Burton J. Baldwin, executor, to probate will, opposed by Irene M. Huebel, by her next friend. From an order directing probate, opponent excepts and appeals. Exception sustained, and case remanded for new trial.

William H. McSoley, of Providence, and Frank F. Nolan, of Newport, for appellant.

Claude R. Branch and Edwards & Angell, all of Providence, and Sheffield & Harvey, of Newport, for appellee.

STEARNS, J. This case is in this court on the bill of exceptions of Irene M. Huebel, appellant. The only exception urged is to the action of a trial justice in the superior court in directing a jury to return a verdict sustaining the will of one Mrs. Amanda S. Muenchinger, a widow, 70 years of age who died in Newport, January 16, 1921. For a number of years Mrs. Muenchinger had conducted a fashionable boarding house, and as a result of her industry had acquired real estate and personal property which was used in the conduct of her business and was of the net value of $57,000. After the death of her husband, which occurred in the spring of 1915, she became acquainted, in the summer of that year, with the appellee, Burton J. Baldwin. At that time Mr. Baldwin, who was about 40 years of age, was a guest in her boarding house, and was engaged as a private tutor for a youthful resident of Newport. Mrs. Muenchinger and Mr. Baldwin became very friendly, and after Mr. Baldwin's departure from Newport, in the fall of 1915, they carried on a correspondence, and later Mrs. Muenchinger visited Mr. Baldwin in New York. In the spring of 1916, at the invitation of Mrs. Muenchinger, Mr. Baldwin returned to Newport, took up his residence in the boarding house, and became an assistant to Mrs. Muenchinger in the management of her business. Mrs. Muenchinger was a woman of strong will and of very considerable executive ability. She had no children or near relatives. The appellant, Irene Huebel, the only child of Mrs. Muenchinger's sister, was born in 1902. Her father died when she was very young. After the death of her mother, in 1912, Mrs. Muenchinger had provided for her support and education. The relations between the aunt and her niece were friendly and affectionate. In February, 1918, on the suggestion and at the request of her aunt, upon the application of the niece, Mrs. Muenchinger was appointed guardian of her niece. At this time appellant testifies that her aunt told her she would leave her well provided for, and this statement was made to her at other times, both before and after this time. There is testimony also of like statements made to another witness. In March, 1918, appellant was sent by Mrs. Muenchinger, with the approval of Mr. Baldwin, to a boarding school, where she remained for over two years. During this period appellant at different times visited her aunt, who continued to maintain a close supervision over the education and welfare of her niece. The relations between Mrs. Muenchinger and Mr. Baldwin continued to grow more intimate. They admired each other and enjoyed each other's society. They took vacation trips together to Atlantic City and other resorts. On one visit, but one trunk was used by them for their baggage. At the boarding house they had their meals together in a private dining room. Although Mrs. Muenchinger continued to be the head of the establishment until her death, Mr. Baldwin was recognized as managing director. Without going into further detail, it is apparent from the testimony that the relations between the two were of great intimacy and were very confidential. There is no claim made, nor is there any evidence to support any claim, of any impropriety in their intimacy. The situtation, however, was somewhat unusual, and the conclusion is certainly not unreasonable that Mr. Baldmin had both the opportunity and the power to influence Mrs. Muenchinger to a certain extent, if he desired to do so. In her presence and in public he took occasion at various times to praise her ability and to compliment her. Appellant claims this was flattery given with an ulterior motive, the intention being thereby insidiously to acquire a controlling influence over her will, not by coercion, but by indirection.

By the provisions of her will, which was executed March 1, 1919, Mrs. Muenchinger gave all of her property to Mc. Baldwin, as stated therein:

"So that he will be able to continue the business which we have carried on together under the name of 'Muenchinger-King' as I hope he will, but without any legal obligations whatever so to do."

Then comes a clause, as follows:

"I also (so far as I have power so to do) appoint said Burton J. Baldwin as guardian of my niece, Irene M. Huebel, if she is still under age at my decease and I wish (without imposing any legal obligations so to do) that he may continue during her minority the provision I have heretofore made for the said Irene M. Huebel."

...