Riggs V's Palmer

1.)On August 13th 1880, Francis B. Palmer created his will and testament in which his two daughters Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston received two small legacies while Elmer E. Palmer his grandson, received the remainder of his estate as long as Elmer outlives Francis and is unmarried and without any issue. 2.)Francis owned a farm and property at the time of the will. 3.)Elmer the grandson knew about his earnings in the will and so before his grandfather Francis can take his earnings away, Elmer murdered Francis by poisoning him so that he can get his reward from the will immediately. 4.)The question is whether Elmer can have his earnings or not. 6.)There is no way that a will can be controlled or modified. 7.)The purpose of the will is for testators to be able to give away their belongings when they die based on what they legally requested to be done with their belongings. 8.)The intention of the will is for the ones who deserve their earnings from a will receive their will. 10.)No one is allowed to profit from fraud, or take advantage of wrong doings, or to acquire property by committing a crime. 11.)Those rules were applied in the case of New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong in which a person who kills another person and receives some form of payment from the death of that person could not receive any form of payment. 12.) A will that is done by Fraud and deception could be made void and checked so that a section of the will may be altered or removed if it is in favor of the person who caused the fraud and deception. 13.) A will that is against public policy, irreligious, or immoral will be made void. 16.) He wants his property from the will after forcing the guarantee of the will by murdering his grandfather. 17.) Therefore, property is not being taken away, a person will not be rewarded for a criminal action that they committed and so Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will. - The property should not given to the defendant for the simple fact that a criminal should not be rewarded for a criminal act that they committed. -We would have never known for sure if the defendant would have gotten his reward or not based on a few examples: 1. The defendant could have died before the grandfather did. 2. The grandfather may have not wanted to give him the inheritance form the will. 3. The grandfather may have killed the defendant. - and other reasons that may have caused the denial of the defendants inheritance. - Of course we cannot predict the future and what may have happened but the grandfather may have changed his mind if he knew that his grandson was going to kill him for his inheritance. -There are many people til this day that commit crimes to get things for themselves and end up in jail punished and do not get anything for their crime. Therefore, this case should not be treated any differently than those cases that have been presented. -The court is not trying to alter or change anything from the will purposely. The court is just trying to decide whether or not the defendant after his criminal action, deserves to get any reward for what he has done to try to get the inheritance. - The court was not trying to force the change of the will either. The court did not try to change anything physically on the written paper of the will. The will just did not want to give any rewards and therefore did of want to fulfill that part of the will because the grandfather may have not wanted to reward his and child with anything after what he did to get it. -The defendant took matters into his own hand thinking that he will be able to get his property after a criminal action that he committed. The problem is a criminal must pay for what his actions has done just like every other criminal that is convicted must pay. It does not make him special that he has a will and therefore he should still be able to get what is on it. He should have to pay for his criminal action, he should not be getting payed for doing what he did.