Riggs v. Palmer summary

In response to your question as a far as how should a testator go about writing a will. I suppose the same way they always do but initiating in the will a foul play clause allowing an option to let the courts or a third party decide on unforeseeable issues that may arise. It is understandable why most people create wills but they are not doing so to fathom that situations like the Elmer case would arise. It is known the statutes that help regulate the creation of a will do exist and these statutes are in place in order to make sure that the testator takes into consideration all possible scenarios and the will be satisfied in its entirety, it was not clear in the minds of the creators of such statutes that another could possibly murder the testator in order to expedite his inheritance. As well we can assume that the grandfather knowing that his grandson would attempt to murder him in order to obtain the provision, it would be unlikely he would be made a reasonable recipient. In reference to the public policy not being true I disagree in the fact that the view of public policy incorporates the principle which holds that a person may not lawfully do that which tends to injure the public. Elmer"s murder of his grandfather to attain property displays a definite injury to the public, which demanded the proper execution of the crime be punished through the law. Allowing Elmer the murderer to get his rewards from the will after killing the Francis for it, will reward the murderer for his crime. This is controversial to public policy because it is displaying to the public that rewarding the criminal for his crime is good. So in this case should the criminal be rewarded because it was part of a legal document called a will?. A person who writes a will and passes away expects his provisions to go to the ones he loved and cared for not the ones he thought would plot out a murder scheme to collect what he worked so hard to attain. If Elmer is allotted to receive the provisions in the will then what are we telling the public it is right to commit murder to receive property of loved ones because it"s a loophole through the law? Society lives with moral codes that are infused with the language of the law and speaks a great deal on what we as citizens expect from one another in our social human contract. So just because the will does not include fine print stating anything about murder or death by a person on the will does not mean the law should allow Elmer to receive his money. A criminal is punished for his actions and his actions nullified his option in receiving such benefits through Francis"s will. In response to "The "intention" to revoke a will should not be accepted as being an "effective" way to revoke a will in Dan v. Brown (4 Cow. 490)". Elmer"s Intention can be presumed to be not "effective" but one thing the courts will agree on is his "intention" and his "act" definitely had an "effect" to whether he should receive the provisions. You argued that there can never be a "visible sign of revocation" from the grandfather due to his death, but isn"t the immediate murder of his grandfather the visible sign of revocation since the will was in play? You also stated that "how would the courts decide on what the testator would like to have certain parts of his property" The courts did not have to pick apart who would get what they just omitted Elmer from receiving any property giving the original recipients equal share of their due. You also stated "The grandfather in this case may have seen Elmer being the only one to be a perfect candidate to his original inheritance." Isn"t that also a presumptuous statement? if he were the only one then what is the point of putting the others in the will and having Elmer meet "specific" guidelines to attain the property?