Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

A will is a document that is written and signed by the testator and as a valid document the courts should enforce it. The intent of the will was to distribute the estate of the testator and whether or not he would want his grandson or his daughters to have the money, is not up for the courts to debate. The grandfather made statements about changing his wills and yet did nothing to change it while he was alive therefore and I quote "The rule is that if the testator lets the will stand until he dies, it is his will" (Goodright v. Glasier) (8.1.8) To answer the statement "The law however has an hidden implication that if someone violates that right they will not be rewarded." In this case the statue does not apply as, although Palmer was murdered in order to receive money, the grandson was already punished by the law for his crime and the courts have no right to further punish him or extend his suffering. There are statues in place for the courts to follow when modifying a will or a contract in general there are specific guidelines on how to do so and the statue must be followed by the court when nulling or making changes to the will. The courts cannot further protect the late testator by looking out for his belongings because the court has no jurisdiction over those matters. The application of this law can only be seen morally correct, but the fact of the matter is that we are governed by written statues that courts must adhere to when making decisions about the cases and not unbiased morals and values. To refute the statement about the robber, in the case of the robber the money was not awarded to the robber in a previous written will, and if that be the case the robber would probably not be charged with taking his own money, the grandson took action to receive what was already entitled to him in a more speedy manner, weather those routes were righteous or not is up for questioning. A will is made to leave certain belongings to whomever the testator issued them to. (2.3.2)- In Owens v. Owens (6.13.1) The wife was convicted of being an accessory to the murder of her husband and the holding was that she was still entitled to his dower. (6.13.2) The ruling for a dower is that the wife receives it when she has survived her husband"s death and thus is at lost for support and protection. (6.13.4)- One can argue the same relationship existed between Palmer and Palmer Sr., the grandson whom lived with the grandfather is now at a loss of support and protection. 1) But the matter does not lie within the domain of conscience. (6.4.2) 2) We are bound by the rigid rules of law, which have been established by the legislature, and within the limits of which the determination of this question is confined. (6.4.3) 3) The question we are dealing with is, whether a testamentary disposition can be altered, or a will revoked, after the testator's death, through an appeal to the courts, when the legislature has, by its enactments, prescribed exactly when and how wills may be made, altered and revoked, and, apparently, as it seems to me, when they have been fully complied with, has left no room for the exercise of an equitable jurisdiction by courts over such matters. (6.4.4) 4) The appellants' argument is not helped by reference to those rules of the civil law, or to those laws of other governments, by which the heir or legatee is excluded from benefit under the testament, if he has been convicted of killing, or attempting to kill, the testator. (7.2.1) 5) In the absence of such legislation here, the courts are not empowered to institute such a system of remedial justice. (7.2.2) 10) I think that a valid will must continue as a will always, unless revoked in the manner provided by the statutes. (8.1.4) 16) Therefore, the judgment should be reversed and the provisions left in the will must be awarded to defendant Elmer Palmer. Controversial The question we are dealing with is, whether a testamentary disposition can be altered, or a will revoked, after the testator's death, through an appeal to the courts, when the legislature has, by its enactments, prescribed exactly when and how wills may be made, altered and revoked, and, apparently, as it seems to me, when they have been fully complied with, has left no room for the exercise of an equitable jurisdiction by courts over such matters. (6.4.4) Mere intention to revoke a will does not have the effect of revocation. (8.1.4) But the matter does not lie within the domain of conscience. (6.4.2) The implications made in the rules of uncoscionability are far few, compared to the question of whether the courts are able to intervene in contracts and how far they are able to do so. These questions are also brought up in the doctrine of unconscionability, how can the courts be sure that Palmer Sr. as a reasonable man did not wish for his grandson to have the money even though her murdered him? There are statues in place to aid the courts when solving these matters, implied laws do not take higher baring over written statues, if that was the case one could just use the ten commandments and imply everything else from there. The courts have no right to further seek revenge against Palmer because he has already served a punishment before the courts, to further punish the defendant is barred by the law. The defendant should receive the money, because once one assumes the courts responsible for the document, one also assumes the courts redistributing and making a new will for the defendant which the courts are not allowed to do, this provision will create a slippery slope on how far the courts can change contracts and intervene in them. In this case the beneficiary is not the deceased himself therefore the courts have no right to vindicate on behalf of the testators daughters.