Riggs v. Palmer summary

Response to premises 6-10 In response to the premise asked in statement 6 on whether a testamentary disposition can be altered, or a will revoked, after the testator's death, through an appeal to the courts can be answered by identifying with the term equitable construction, which is the construction of a statute by either restraining or enlarging the letter of the statute. It allows the court jurisdiction to make and adjust certain modifications to a will under special circumstances in certain cases. Since this case is one of them the court is obliged to use rational interpretation which allows the courts to either limit or expand on a statute without deviating from the principles of the statute and applying it to the circumstances. Since Elmer murdered his grandfather for the intention of receiving property in favor of him provided in the will, is it not the courts job in this case to find out whether the lawmakers of the statute intended for a person to benefit from their crime if no provisions in the will states anything about it?. (Statement 10) In reference to the question regarding the power or warrant the courts have to add to the respondent's penalties by depriving him of property. There were no added penalties by depriving Elmer of property since Elmer deprived himself of obtaining the property. The courts recognized that since Elmer tried to expedite his inheritance through fraudulent means, the rule of a statue in a case gives jurisdiction to the nullification of a will since the procurement was through fraudulent means. The law does not promote the idea that someone should benefit from their crime so this in turns decree"s the will void excluding it from probate so the person who tried inducing the will through a fraudulent manner does not reap the benefit. Statements (7,8,9) In response to the other question presented "The court made some assumptions that the testator would have possibly made changes if he was still alive but how can a court apply law based on assumptions?" . In respect to this claim I don"t believe the court made such assumptions. It merely took into consideration the factors and all possible scenarios involved in this case and made a rational interpretation of how a reasonable man would have responded to changes of the will if he was aware of unforeseeable actions. It is Likely that Francis would not have wanted to induce or enter in his will property for grandson if he was aware at the time of Elmer"s devious behavior. Since Francis is not alive to determine what actions he may have decided to take regarding the distribution of his property given all the information at hand, the judge now has to assess the circumstances surrounding the construction of the will and whether the language of the will would have expressed his intention to date. Therefore, it is not rash to assume that the courts made a reasonable interpretation of the will in taking to account what Francis as a reasonable man would of declared to change in his will if allotted the chance to before he was murdered by his grandson. When the law is left ambiguous, it is up to the courts to decide whether the particular circumstances are under the jurisdiction of the law and this is what the judges did they decided by going straight to the intentions of the law makers and relied on the fundamental maxim"s of the common law. Elmer"s decision to commit murder and place himself in a position to receive the benefits of the provision practically warranted the courts to make another will for the testator. Even though the laws do not warrant this kind of judicial action, it is required in order to sustain reasonable order. This is why court decided that it could never have been the intention of the legislature that a person who murdered someone could be able to benefit from his or her own wrong doing. In reference to your statement "When the courts altered the will they in a sense devalued the will and altered it to where the will was of the court not of the original testator." How did the court devalue the will when all but one of the recipients retained the property through a non-fraudulent manner?