Riggs v Palmer

Amina Amjed Riggs v. Palmer debate 1.In the case of Riggs v. Palmer, the law was upheld during the decision making by Judge Earl. He critically analyzed the statutes regulating the making and proofing of wills and applied said statutes to the will of Francis B. Palmer. 2.The statute itself entails that a will cannot be modified, by any means, after the passing, of the testator due to the absence of said testator. Therefore, it is ill fated to state that the law should be expanded upon in any way to exclude and to deprive the defendant of his lawful possessions. 3.It can be agreed upon that the defendant, Elmer Palmer, by murdering the testator, committed a heinous and malicious crime, to expedite the activation of the aforementioned will. 4.Thus, the court has upheld the law of criminal jurisdiction, and is justified in their decision of the defendant for the crime that he committed which was the willful murder of Francis Palmer. 5.By claiming that the defendant, who is a lawful donee of the will, should not be allowed to enjoy the property that is legally endowed to him would be to subject the said defendant to cruel and unusual punishment. 6.Furthermore, by restricting the defendant from enjoying the property he has legally procured will be to impose additional punishment on the defendant. 7.It is stated in the law that a will obtained by deception or by fraud may be negated and set aside. A particular portion of the will can then be excluded or held inoperative by the undue influence of whom the will was in favor of. 8.However, in the case at hand, the will created by the testator, was made without undue influence and was made under rational and reasonable consciousness of the testator and can therefore be held operative. 9.It has been held by the Supreme Court that when a will has been kept from the destruction of misrepresentation and fraud of the beneficiary, to declare it void as against the fraudulent party would be to enlarge the statute, of which the court does not have the authority to do. 10.In addition, the will would have been held void, if the defendant, Elmer Palmer, had met the testator, before his untimely death and taken the property by force. Since that was not the case, and the will was made by the testator in full consciousness the will cannot and should not be held void. 11.The law provides that a provision was within the intentions of the law makers as they were writing the statute; but anything which was not in the intention of the law makers is not to be considered within the statue, even if it is within the letter of the law. 12.To this end, it could not have been the intention of the law makers to deprive a beneficiary from his legal claim in a will which he/she was made part of by the rational and reasonable decision of the testator. If that were the case, than it would have also been stated by the law makers as to when it would have been justified to alter a rationally created will. To deprive the donee from obtaining his possessions from the will, the law would be upholding a stance of injustice. 13.It can be concurred, then, that the purpose of the statutes is to allow for the testator(s) to dispose of their estates and personal property and to carry out their final wishes as they had legally expressed in their will. It was in the intention of the law makers that once a will has become operative the beneficiaries of the will should obtain the property given to them. 14.In accordance with the law, the legislators have made it comprehensible as to when and how wills may be made, revoked and altered. It holds than, that when these regulations have been fully and thoroughly complied with there is no room for the exercise of equitable jurisdiction by the courts in such matters. 15.The rights to dispose of an individual"s property after his death are subjected to legislative control in the extent and to the mode of its exercise. 16.In your argument, you have stated that it could not have been the intention of the law makers to ensure that the donee(s) (Elmer Palmer) named by the testator (Francis Palmer), should receive whatever property was left to them in their will, once the will was activated by murder. 17.It what you say is correct; this claim should have been a subtext of the provisions made to the statue regarding the rational mind of the testator when creating the will. 18.Since the will was created by the testator, without undue influence or fraudulent behavior by the defendant, the will should be held as it was written by the testator, without any alterations or revocations made to the will by the courts. 19.Therefore, making any alterations to the will would subject the true meaning of the will to be altered which by law the court does not have the authority to do. 20.The defendant, Elmer Palmer, has been tried in court for his heinous and malicious crime of murder, and has been justly punished for said crime. 21.The statute at hand states that no will in writing, nor any part of said will shall be revoked or altered. There are no explicit provisions made after said statue that cover the facts in the case of Riggs v. Palmer. 22.To withhold and/or revoke any parts of the will of which Elmer Palmer is a beneficiary would be to act in an illegitimate manner. 23.In addition, it would impose a penalty which is beyond the punishment already appropriated in the criminal trial. 24.Therefore, the will should remain as is and Elmer Palmer should be held legal beneficiary of the will without any alteration and/or revocation made to the will as it was the intention of the testator.