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) "The question we are dealing with is, whether a testamentary disposition can be altered, or a will revoked, after the testator's death, through an appeal to the courts, when the legislature has, by its enactments, prescribed exactly when and how wills may be made, altered and revoked, and, apparently, as it seems to me, when they have been fully complied with, has left no room for the exercise of an equitable jurisdiction by courts over such matters" (19.3). 7) "To the statutory restraints, which are imposed upon the disposition of one's property by will, are added strict and systematic statutory rules for the execution, alteration and revocation of the will; which must be, at least, substantially, if not exactly, followed to insure validity and performance" (19.5) 8) . "The words of the section of the statute are: "No will in writing, except in the cases hereinafter mentioned, nor any part thereof, shall be revoked or altered otherwise," etc. Where, therefore, none of the cases mentioned are met by the facts, and the revocation is not in the way described in the section, the will of the testator is unalterable" (22.2-3). 9) "The appellants' argument practically amounts to this: That as the legatee has been guilty of a crime, by the commission of which he is placed in a position to sooner receive the benefits of the testamentary provision, his rights to the property should be forfeited and he should be divested of his estate. To allow their argument to prevail would involve the diversion by the court of the testator's estate into the hands of persons, whom, possibly enough, for all we know, the testator might not have chosen or desired as its recipients. Practically the court is asked to make another will for the testator. The laws do not warrant this judicial action, and mere presumption would not be strong enough to sustain it" (24.3-5) 10 "What power or warrant have the courts to add to the respondent's penalties by depriving him of property? The law has punished him for his crime, and we may not say that it was an insufficient punishment. In the trial and punishment of the respondent the law has vindicated itself for the outrage which he committed, and further judicial utterance upon the subject of punishment or deprivation of rights is barred. We may not, in the language of the court in People v. Thornton (25 Hun, 456), 'enhance the pains, penalties and forfeitures provided by law for the punishment of crime' "(25.2-5). 11) Therefore, Elmer should be entitled to his inheritance in the will. non-controversial 1-5 controversial 6 -10 Responding to your last few questions " but isn"t the immediate murder of his grandfather the visible sign of revocation since the will was in play?" not exactly the revocation would have to come from the testator. "'The grandfather in this case may have seen Elmer being the only one to be a perfect candidate to his original inheritance.' Isn"t that also a presumptuous statement?" Yes, but the court can never know that due to the death of the grandfather. " If he were the only one then what is the point of putting the others in the will and having Elmer meet "specific" guidelines to attain the property?" Elmer did meet the guidelines the reason the grandfather mentioned more people was to ensure his farm would be secured. Since Elmer was in first position it should be that he was a better candidate than anyone else. To end off, Elmer should in no doubt be punish for the crime of murder. But the courts being allowed to alter wills which are strict contracts still remains a issue. The court uses idea that "an evil deed should not be rewarded". But altering a will should have not been the answer.