Riggs v. Palmer summary

1). Francis B. Palmer owned a farm and personal property. (1.2) 2). Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament on August 13, 1880. (1.1) 3). Francis B. Palmer"s will attested that his two daughters Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston receive small legacies while Elmer E. Palmer his grandson, receive the remainder of his estate as long as Elmer outlives Francis and is unmarried and without any issue. (1.1) 4). Elmer knew of the provisions that favored him in Francis"s will so he decided to murder him by poisoning his grandfather to obtain immediate possession of the property entitled to him in the will. (1.5) 5). Elmer claims that by the letter of the law since the will was made in due form he has the right to claim the property. (1.6) 6). It was the intention of law makers that donees should have the property given to them but it was never their intention that the donee who murders the testator to gain the property should have any benefit under it. (3.2-3) 7). The writers of laws did not always express their intention perfectly but because of this they expected judges to use rational interpretation of the language used in the law. (3.6) 8). Since the letter of the law is not expressed perfectly in some cases an equitable construction is drawn which dictates the letter of the statue is sometimes holden to be within the meaning providing a remedy for the mischief. (4.2-3) 9). The construction of statues states if any absurd consequences arise contradictory to common reason then collateral consequences are void meaning if the general language of the law is unreasonable to the case judges have the decency to conclude it was not foreseen by parliament and can disregard it. (4.8-9) 10). As was so in the case of Mutual life Insurance Company v. Armstrong where it was held that the person who murdered the policy owner in order to obtain payment on behalf of the policyholder payable only upon death of the policy owner would forfeit their right to that payment. (7.4-6) 11). Under the circumstances in this case what law will allow Elmer to take the estate of Francis after murdering him to reap the benefits of his crime? (9.2) 12). The rule of a statue can be nullified if a will is procured by fraud, therefore decreeing it void and excluding it from probate so the person who tried inducing the will does not reap the benefit. 13). Thus, I believe Elmer should not be awarded the inheritance. Non controversial- 1-5, 9, 10, 12 Controversial 6, 7, 8, 11 (Closing Arguments) Premise 6 -10 (rebuttal) In response to your answer/question if at the time you did write a will delegating your daughter to possess a vehicle after your passing would it dawn on you that at the time you were making this will your daughter was plotting to murder you for it. If aware of her future actions at the time would you still proceed with giving her this gift?Are the courtsfallible in speaking for you beyond the grave?. Even if you did decide to reward her for her sneaky deeds the courts cant. Her fraudulent and mischievous actions go against a moral justification that disregards the principle of the law. Since there is a special relationship there it would be inconceivable to think a reasonable person would want to draw out a will knowing he will be murdered for it. The will can also be seen as a contract in which the courts decide whether there was a breach. If your daughter plotted to murder you and did so the will (contract) can be found unenforceable on grounds of public policy. Your daughter tried to attain property through fraudulent means making the contract void and also her actions in doing so could pose harm to society as a whole. Would the courts really start ruling in favor for a murderer"s gain? a court will never enforce a contract promoting something already against state or federal law. (Statement 10 Rebuttal) In your response to statement 10 I think you answered your own question which kind of goes against the point you may have been trying to make. The question asked was "Can we know for sure that Elmer's intentions of murdering his grandfather was for his inheritance of the will alone?" I will highlight some of the points in your own answer to clarify it. "He knew of the provisions made in his favor in the will, and, that he might prevent his grandfather from revoking such provisions, which he had manifested some intention to do, and to obtain the speedy enjoyment and immediate possession of his property, he willfully murdered him by poisoning him" (1.4). In response to the analogy you tried to make for yourself if you did plot to kill your grandfather and proceeded to do so within the same week he wrote out his will your "intention" was only to murder him without the knowledge of a will it was just coincidental the will arose. Here Elmer "knew" of the will which gave him "motive" a mensrea to collect what he thought was his. He wanted to prevent his grandfather from changing his mind so he murdered him for gain as where you just wanted to murder him just because. (Statements 7,8,9 Rebuttal) In response to the analogy you tried to make here I don"t fully understand the point you are trying to make, yes there are unforeseeable actions in a will that can"t all be stated in the will but the fault would not merely rely on the property but in the actions taken to enact a will. There were certain stipulations that had to be followed in order for Elmer to receive his provisions your right Francis could not write in "grandson you can"t kill me " but the courts cannot adhere to murder for the gain of property. Elmer was entitled to the property until he decided to create a loophole through the plain language of the law. The courts have to decide whether it is morally and legally right to let a murderer reap his benefits and they did so by using rational interpretation of the language. Francis is in the same situation as lawmakers since their intentions aren"t perfect equitable construction is required to find a remedy in the imperfection. As far as your analogy to the loan I think it is an irrelevant argument to make. There is already huge amounts of foreseeable circumstances when taking out a loan the whole purpose of the loan is a person does not have the means to pay what they are borrowing so the courts would not have to change anything we are speaking about inconceivable and unforeseeable circumstances. Circumstances that morally and legally create a contradiction to the language of law. Elmer is being punished for murder which is a criminal act. Since there were not many cases to gauge Elmer"s case the precedent had to be set in his. The courts cannot and will not reward evil with good so even though the will did not state the specific act of murder it does not bar the courts of assisting to modify the intentions the language of the will and a reasonable man"s interpretation of the law according to the will. In closing the facts have been passed upon twice with the same result, first upon the trial of Palmer for murder, and then by the referee in this action. It takes from him no property, but simply holds that he shall not acquire property by his crime, and thus be rewarded for its commission. The court is therefore, of opinion That Elmer E. Palmer be Prohibited from using any of the personalty or real estate left by the testator for Elmer's benefit and the plaintiffs are the true owners of the real and personal estate left by the testator under the ante-nuptial agreement, and that the plaintiffs have costs in all the courts against Elmer. (14-15)