Riggs vs. Palmer

Con argument (jerry) 1. A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers. (509.3.5) 2. The intention of the makers of a statute is within the statute as interpreted within its text. (509.3.6) 3. Writer of laws may be unclear of their intention, so judges must collect it from reasonable conjectures; rational interpretation; we suppress the meaning of the writer, take in less or extend it. (509.3.7) 4. They were determined by an equitable construction and by that, a case not within letter may be within its meaning because a new statute may be created with every new case. (510.1.2) 5. Lawmakers can"t create statutes for every case. (510.1.3) 6. In some cases, the letter of law may be restrained, enlarged, or the opposite. (510.1.7) 7. If consequences occur opposed to common reason, they are void. (510.1.10) 8. If they occur and are unreasonable, then the judges are to conclude the consequence was not foreseen and therefore may disregard it. (510.1.11) 9. All laws and contracts may be controlled by maxims of the common law. (511.3.1) 10. No one is allowed to profit from his own crime. (511.3.2) 11. Maxims are based in universal law in all civilized countries and have not been overridden by statutes. (511.3.3) 12. The decision of the case New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v Armstrong implied these maxims. (511.3.4) 13. There the person who attained a policy upon someone"s life, payable at his death, but murdered the assured to initiate the policy, could not recover thereon. (511.3.5) 14. It would be unacceptable to law"s concept if one could receive the money payable on the death of assured after taking his life. (511.3.7) 15. Maxims control the language of wills. (511.4.1) 16. In the case of Allen v. M"Phreson, a will attained by fraud & deception may be nullified and so a certain part of a will may be held ineffective if triggered by the fraud or undue influence of the person who may favor from it. (511.4.2) 17. A will providing immoral irreligious concepts or be against public policy will be held ineffective. (512.1.1) 18. If he forcibly took the property while the testator lived, he would not be entitled to it. (512.2.4) 19. If he had forced or induced by fraud or undue influence the testator to give him his property, he lawfully can"t claim it. (512.2.6) 20. Under civil law, one cannot inherit property or will from a testator whom he murdered. (512.3.1) 21.Revisers & lawmakers found it unnecessary to imply civil laws into statutes of this subject. (512.3.4) 22.Maxims of the common law were enough to regulate such a case and a specific statement for that purpose was unnecessary. (512.3.6) 23. Therefore, the respondent"s succession to the estate should be held void for murdering the testator. Summary: Lawmakers cannot make a statute for every new case that occurs. Hence, the text of the statute does not state specifically the intention of the lawmaker. Therefore, the statutes are made for judges to interpret and conclude what the intentions of the lawmakers were in reasonable and rational manner, whether they suppress what the text of the statute or extend it. Past cases have shown this to be true. This is found in maxims of the common law which are based in universal law that have never been superseded by statutes. Maxims are implied in wills and anything immoral or against public policy is ineffective and under civil law, one can"t inherit property from a testator he intentionally murdered. Therefore, the respondent"s attempt for the estate by inducing the testator with fraud or undue influence cannot be permissible.