Riggs v. Palmer: Disallowing inheritance of will

I understand that morals and law go hand-in-hand but this case is not about morals, it is about the law and what the law-makers intended when they created statutes regarding wills. But, if you want to talk about morals then can"t you say that it would be immoral to not grant Francis Palmer"s last wish and carry out his will as stated? How is it morally correct for the court to intervene where they should not? For example, it would be as if politics got involved in religion and decided to become "daddy-like" figures in an issue they did not belong, nor had authority to govern. In no way am I condoning what Elmer did, but it is not right for a court to take away property that is rightfully his. If universal maxims are superior to any statute, then why is that statute in place? Why is the statute not changed to reflect these universal maxims? Universal maxims and statutes should be the same if there is going to be a significant relationships between morals and the law. But, as I say again this is not an issue of morals, it is an issue of the law and how it should be interpreted. Yes, we have to look at this, and every case at a case-by-case basis, but who is to say that the way this court handles this case is correct? More than correct, is it justice? For a court to make this case the first precedent of its kind that does not mean justice is being upheld. Injustice is being done to Elmer, just so the court can make up for their mistakes in the past. This could have all been avoided if the law-makers would have just wrote what they intended. How is it fair to assume that they intended something that they did not write down? There are multiple interpretations that can be made about any said law, so how can we determine which is correct? If I am not mistaken, you are trying to say that wills need to explicitly say everything. For example, there should be a provision stating that if a donee murders the testator, then that donee is not privileged to the provisions left to them. But, to make a testator have to explicitly state such provisions would just be wrong and unnecessary. A testator should not be held responsible to write down those in their will who they might believe will kill them for many reasons. For one, it is not rationale for people to think that their family members will murder them for money because that is not how our moral society works. This issue should have been handled by law-makers in the past. It is not convincing to say that law-makers could not have intended to let donee"s who murdered their benefactors to obtain their inheritance. It is just irrational for law-makers to not foresee such possibilities. It is understandable that a court needed to step in to settle this conflict, but they overstepped their boundaries when they rewarded the plaintiff"s with Francis Palmer"s entire will. Francis Palmer only left a small legacy to his daughters, if he wanted to give them more he would have explicitly stated such in his will. So, who is the court to rewrite Palmer"s will and give his daughters his property as well? That was not Palmer"s wish, nor should the court be allowed to grant such. How is it fair or justifiable to give Palmer"s daughters everything? The majority opinion stated themselves that nature could not take its course so there is no say as to how Palmer would have handled his will if he was to live longer. So, how can you assume that Palmer would have left everything to his daughters if not Elmer? That is just hypocritical to say Elmer cannot get it because that may not have been Palmer"s wish, but it is okay to assume he wanted his property handed to his two daughters. That argument is just unconvincing and creates a double standard, which are immoral. You should not look at this as Elmer is being rewarded for his crime, because he is not. He is just being given what could have eventually been his regardless. The most rationale assumption that a court should be allowed to make regarding this situation is that Palmer would have revoked the provisions in Elmer"s favor if he really wanted to. But, Palmer never acted on any revocations. And like Woodworth Jr., said in Dan v. Brown: "Revocation is an act of the mind, which must be demonstrated by some outward and visible sign of revocation" (48.3.7). It is injustice to prohibit Elmer from receiving his rightful property just because Palmer failed to act on his intentions.