Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

Although there are many moral inclinations in our law system the courts are not allowed to play father when it comes to contracts. The courts however are allowed to make changes to the provision where the statues allow for it. In law we have many statues and legislations to deal with the instances of the law where there is injustice. Even though the courts do have some jurisdiction the matter at hand here is that the courts are not allowed to draft a new will for the testator. They are also not allowed to redistribute the will. The law is made to keep order and provide punishment where it is needed, and to look out for the interests of the common wealth. Now, with that being said the case at bar does not speak to any of the former categories. The case here at bar only speaks to the rules of the written law and how the rules should be enforced when the moral values of the courts and the law conflict. The matter here is that by the letter of the law there was no reason for the courts to intervene, a mere intention to intervene is not sufficient to warrant this action by the courts. There is no provision in law that allows foe the courts to speak on behalf of the dead when it involves a will or testament specifically drafted by the testator. The courts do not have any rights to distribute the parts belonging to the grandson to the testator"s daughters as the courts do not know for sure if that is what the testator would have wanted. The courts have no bearing on the issue of whether or not the grandson should receive the provisions, the courts extended the defendants suffering by taking away the provisions in the will. To speak to the case of Simpson, the belongings were no longer Mr. Simpsons they had been transferred to another party and therefore owner by Mr. Simpson had been terminated which is why he was charged of a robbery. In this case the Grandson owns the money by the power of a legal will, regardless of being convicted of an ill act. In the case of the insurance company the wrongdoer had ill intentions before the money was his in any way, the reason for taking out the insurance was part of means rea in that case. In this case the money was awarded to the grandson before he had any ill fates towards his grandfather. The cases here at bar do not constitute for the defendant to not get the inheritance but simply that the law be changed to include such statue. The words of the section of the statute are: "No will in writing, except in the cases hereinafter mentioned, nor any part thereof, shall be revoked or altered otherwise," etc. (8.1.2) Where, therefore, none of the cases mentioned are met by the facts, and the revocation is not in the way described in the section, the will of the testator is unalterable. (8.1.3) 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)