Riggs v. Palmer

Like i said in my previous argument, we have no way to know that Francis Palmer would have revoked or altered his will, even if he knew his grandson could have the potential to kill him for the inheritance. I do agree that the motivation for the killing was to receive the inheritance before time could naturally intervene, but you said no being in his right mind would allow an inheritance to go to the person who murdered them. While improbable to ever actually happen, I have the ability to think of situations where that simply is not the case. A person may have no one to leave anything to and would still rather have their property in the family name, even if murdered by the beneficiary. A person could also reasonably understand that they will die and have no say in the matter at all. There could even be situations in which an inheritance could be meant to be a punishment by the benefactor. A testator could offer his estate, to a person who had possibly done him wrong at some point in life, and it could involve handing over, for example, a home or land plagued with crippling debt, or in need of tremendous amounts of upkeep. If this were the case, your point would be supported, but the will would still pass under similar circumstances. Just as in all cases involving a last will and testament, it would be under strict scrutiny of the law. In the case of New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong, the decision was held to disallow the payment of a policy. While it is a similar case, the details are inherently different. This case involved the question of a payable life insurance policy, not a last will and testament. They can be similar in some manners, but they do have differences which can be handled differently in the eyes of a court. The life insurance policy may not include a person"s last wishes. It specifically deals with money. A will may not. A will can be entirely more personal, and it is in this situation. While a will has properties similar to a contract, They may not follow the same rules. A last will and testament does not necessarily include an agreement between two parties. It is not always the case that the inheriting party has consented to, or even knows about the inheritance they may or may not receive. This one-sidedness of a will puts it in an entirely different category than a contract. The law does not apply as in a contract, unless it is explicitly written that it should do so. If a person commits a crime in order to unfairly benefit from a contract, unconscionability comes into play. In this case, a crime was committed, a sentence was given, and the inheritance was deemed appropriate by the court, as it was not agreed upon beforehand that if a crime should happen, the will must be voided. As for the thought that the law should prevent Elmer from inheriting due to his despicable, criminal act, the law does not have an opinion in the matter. There have been no conditions expressed that would allow the law regarding criminal acts, to step in and disallow the estate. Even though a crime was committed to expedite the inheritance, to even allow the courts to deem this important, would be allowing the courts to over ride the wishes of the testator. The deceased may not have allowed anyone else to be part of his will. His wishes may expressly exclude the involvement of the people in question. It is not enough to assume that he would have or could have done so. The most important part of this case, is the fact that the inheritance was upheld and given to Elmer at the time of his grandfather"s death. This is still only about the issue of voiding or altering the last will and testament of Francis Palmer. Very few factors are necessary in determining the whether or not the will can be touched. Only the previously established statutes can be taken as the word of the law. As the case stands, the plaintiffs do not have sufficient cause to void or alter the will, and thus, the decision to grant Elmer Palmer the inheritance should stand.