Riggs v. Palmer

In August of 1880, Francis B. Palmer created his last will and testament, leaving his estate to his two daughters, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston, and to his grandson Elmer E. Palmer. Elmer lived with his grandfather on a farm which was of considerable worth, along with the other possessions he put into the will. Elmer knew that there was a chance his grandfather could write him out of the will, or that under certain circumstances, he may not be eligible to inherit. His grandfather had, in fact, expressed some intent to change his will. Elmer sought to prevent the possible change by ensuring that his grandfather would die while the current will's legality was solid. Elmer murdered his grandfather by poisoning him, with the intent to ensure he would receive the inheritance of the last will and testament. Elmer did indeed receive the inheritance. The daughters of Francis Palmer brought upon the action to prevent Elmer from receiving an inheritance. Elmer was also tried and convicted of second degree murder, and during the appeal case, was serving time in a reformatory. His claim for the property is based on whether or not his grandfather's will can be open to interpretation. The daughter's claim was based on the fact that Elmer could have possibly prevented the reformation of his grandfather's will. Their claim was based on equitable considerations. These considerations are very much governed by matters of conscience. While conscience can be a consideration in many situations, this specific case has nothing to do with it. The question is not whether or not it was wrong for Elmer to kill his grandfather and if he should receive an inheritance. It is also not a question whether or not it was morally permissible for him to receive the inheritance, however unlawfully he did. Elmer is not to be punished by the revocation of his grandfather's will. This case has nothing to do with the crime Elmer committed. The only question at hand in this case is whether or not a will can be altered or voided, after its testator's death. The property of the dead testator is now subject to complete legal control and does not have the freedom to be interpreted. A last will and testament does not work unless it is bound to strict rules regarding its creation and alteration. These rules are the only way to truly ensure that a testator's property will be protected by law, after his/her death. These rules must be followed to the letter to ensure this protection. There was no specific ordinance written stating that if the testator should die in this way, the will must be altered. That rule had not been written by the testator nor the drafter, and it is also not part of common policy. Just because Elmer committed a criminal act, does not mean he should be punished beyond the justice served for his original act. Elmer should receive the inheritance. Non-controversial claims: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,18,19, not my opponents #7 I believe that, when all is said and done, Elmer Palmer should receive his inheritance. This is based on the fact that his grandfather, Francis Palmer, explicitly wrote into his will, the clauses that allow for an inheritance to passed onto his grandson. None of these clauses express any concern of the intentions of his grandson, nor do they express any willingness to alter or void the will, should certain circumstances arise. Elmer was tried and convicted of the crime of murdering his grandfather. He was punished appropriately in terms of the law, and the public does not demand any more than that. This entire debate was about one topic, how a will can be altered or voided after the death of the testator. There is a series of statues that provides reasons and situations that allow for changes to take place. This particular case did not contain any of those statutes. Those statutes are the only way to safeguard a person's last will and testament. The law must retain complete control over the will of a deceased testator, for its full protection, as determined by its creator.