palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

1) On the day of August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and left a part of his estate to two of his daughters, Riggs and Preston. The will to his two daughters consisted of small legacies, nonetheless, it was a gift to them upon the testator's death. (508.1.1.) 2) The latest provision to the will was made by Palmer to include his 16 year old grandson, Elmer Palmer, to the will. This last provision was added right before Francis B. Palmer was killed by his grandson Elmer Palmer. The grandson lived with Francis B. Palmer and was considered a part of the family. (508.1.5.) 3) The will's bacis principle is no alteration or manipulation should occur in reference to the provisions of a will with the exclusion of the writer himself. The writer is the one who drafts, writes, make alterations into the will which is later executed, after his or her death. It is a sacred document, in which all of the provisions, comments, notations should be respectfully followed by the parties involved, especially if they are part of the writer's family. Such sacred document should never be taken lightly by anyone. The last wishes are reflected in the document,a will, to inform of anyone involved that those are the commands and wishes that need to fully dutifully executed into action, realized and followed after the testator's death. 4) The fact that defendant Palmer was very well aware of his grandfather's latest provisions to the will, he had long thoughts on how to stop his grandfather from never taking back what he wrote in his will. The defendant Palmer acted upon preventing his grandfather from making more alterations that might have been against his favor, the defendant Palmer intentionally murdered Francis B Palmer by poison. Palmer's intentions were clear and focused, how to stop his grandfather from changing his mind and later cutting his grandson Palmer out of the will. The testator is indeed dead now and following his last wishes, the will shall take place of execution, which would make the grandson Palmer the beneficiary to his legacy from the will. (509.1.1.) 5) By securing the immediate collection of funds upon the will by the act of murder by poisoning, defendant Palmer manipulated the will to his advantage and therefore, altered it, which should result in the voidance of the will. The principle of the law was basically disregarded in this sense. The defendant Palmer changed its operation to profit therefrom.(512-513.3.5-12) + (512.2.2.) 6) Therefore, Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will. Noncontroversial: The original decision of the Court was to give the defendant Palmer his portion of the inheritance left to him by his grandfather Francis B. Palmer. On the Appelate decision, the Court sided withthe decision that Palmer should not receive the portion of the will originally left to him because of moral and human principles. It is a universal law and a public policy that have weight in the statutes of the law, that no man should come into possession of property by his own crime. It would be morally wrong for the Court to reward someone of inheritance when the Court is well aware that a defendant only acted with selfish reasons, profited from his own crime, killed his grandfather for money that he might have inherited anyway. The Court cannot accept such atrocity that is so morally wrong. To reward someone for such cruel acts would and in fact will open the door for anyone to challenge the fact that now since it is written in a will, i can never be contested and those will play it to their advantage like for example in this Palmer case, to kill without consequence. Therefore, Palmer should not be rewarded in accordance with moral principles. (511.5.2-3.) Controversial: 1) The draftsman of the will is dead and the will has had its revision of including the grandson into it. (509.1.7.) 2) The will must take into effect with respect to the law of contracts and pay out the defendant Palmer. (509.3.1.) 3) There is no determination made that the will has had its last revision. The same way that there is no determination that any more revisions would take place. The Court does not look at the fact of what could have happened but it was not up to the defendant Palmer to decide, it was not up to him to partake in the will but he still did. 4) The revisions and alterations could have been made to the will by Francis B. Palmer but the act of murder occurred and therefore it eliminated the possibility of a will ever be revised. 5) Defendant Palmer took the right of revising the will from its original writer and therefore altering it in a way to benefit himself and acquiring the funds that originally belonged to him. The fact that he therefore altered the will, manipulated it in a way to his advantage, Palmer should be denied his portion of the will left to him by his grandfather Francis B. Palmer. 6) Therefore, the will should be annulled by the Court on the basis of fraud and wrongful act by the grandson Palmer. (512.2.2.)