Riggs Debate

1.)On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament, which he gave small legacies to his daughters Mrs Riggs and Mrs Preston, the plaintiffs in this action, and the remainder of his estate to his grandson Elmer E. Palmer, the defendant in this action. 2.)Elmer knew of the provisions made in the will, so to prevent his grandfather from revoking those provisions and to obtain speedy enjoyment and immediate possession of his property, he murdered him by poisoning him. 3.)The framing of statutes is largely influenced by common law which means no one should be able to benefit off of their own crime and also no one should be able to profit by their own fraud, or wrongdoing to gain property by committing a crime. 4.)A will produced by fraud and deception should be declared void and the portion of the will that appears to be fraudulent should not be acted on. 5.)There was no certainty that Elmer would"ve survived Mr. Palmer, and also no certainty that Elmer would"ve gotten the property if Mr. Palmer had died naturally. 6.)Elmer also thought that by killing Mr. Palmer it would be an easy and fast way to inherit the estates; without having to wait for him to die. 7.) Just before the murder Elmer was not a heir and it was not certain that he would ever be; he might have died before his grandfather, or might have have been disinherited by him; he made himself a heir by the murder as he seek to take property following his crime. 8.) Under the civil law developed from general principles of natural law, one cannot take property by inheritance or will from an ancestor whom he or she has murdered. 9.) The crime committed would make Elmer receive the benefits of the will earlier than expected so his rights to the property should be disallowed. 10.) Although there is no statue, common law carries just as much influence in cases like this and common law was meant to ensure that justice was served in instances not covered by a statute or where the statute was vague. 11.) In any event he committed a criminal act specifically in order to benefit from an inheritance that he already knew about and hence it was a deliberate criminal act and not something that happened by accident or chance. 12.) A will serves as a contract; under the legal theory of illegality, a contract is voidable if formed through illegal means. 13.) Although the will was formed legally, the triggering action in a will is death and if this triggering action is obtained by illegal means then the contract should be voidable because it was achieved through an illegal method. 14.) Elmer would also not be subjected to double jeopardy because double jeopardy would only apply if he was charged with another criminal offense in this specific case, however, this is a civil case. 15.) In any case whether criminal or civil, the main purpose is to ensure that justice is served. 16.) If Elmer had received the inheritance after committing such a vicious act on the person who was so benevolent to him, it would have been a travesty and justice would have not been served. 17.) Therefore, Elmer should not receive the inheritance from the will. I will conclude by saying that Elmer committed a horrible crime that cost someone their life just because of his selfish ways. His grandfather was the one that was making sure that when he left this earth Elmer would have something that would help him maintain at least, and what did Elmer do to him, he murdered him. Why should someone who did such a horrible thing be rewarded with something that caused them their life? If we award Elmer with the property there would be no lesson taught. Mr. Palmer deserves justice and im sure that he would not want something that caused him his life to be rewarded to the person that killed him. If we allow Elmer to inherit the estates, im sure that there will be a number of cases in the future where people will just kill to inherit from someone else's will. We need to set an example so that a case like this wouldn't happen as often.