Riggs v. Palmer: Disallowing inheritance of will

(1.)On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament, in which he gave small legacies to his two daughters, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston (the plaintiffs), and the remainder to his grandson, the defendant, Elmer E. Palmer, subject to support of Susan Palmer (defendants mother), with a gift over to the two daughters, subject to the support of Mrs. Palmer, in case Elmer should survive him and die under age, unmarried, and without any issue (45.1.1) (2.)When the testator made his will, he owned a farm and considerable personal property (45.1.2). (3.)In March 1882, the testator married his second wife, Mrs.Bresee, with an anti-nuptial contract in which it was agreed that, in lieu of dower and all other and all other claims upon his estate in case she survived him, she should have her support upon his farm during her life, and such support was expressly charged upon the farm (45.1.3). (4.)Elmer was living with his grandfather from the date the will created till his death, in which Elmer was 16 years old (45.1.4). (5.)Elmer willfully murdered his grandfather with poison because he knew of the provisions in his favor in the will, and wanted to prevent his grandfather from revoking the provisions since the grandfather manifested intention to do so (45.1.5). (6.)Elmer now claims the property, and the testator"s daughters are trying to take it away from him (45.1.6). (7.)The defendants say that since the testator is dead, and that his will was made in due form, it must have effect according to the letter of the law (45.2.1). (8.)Statutes regulating the making, proof, and effect of wills, and the devolution of property, if literally construed, and if their force an effect can in no way and under no circumstance be controlled or modified, give this property to the murderer (45.2.2). (9.)"The purpose of those statutes was to allow testators to dispose of their estates to the objects of their bounty at death, and to carry out their final wishes legally we must keep this in mind" (45.2.3). (10.)The intention of the law-makers was to make sure the donees in a will have what was given to them (45.2.4). (11.)It is unreasonable to assume that the law-makers could not have rationally interpreted a donee killing a testator to receive their benefits in advance, especially if the donee was aware that the testator was considering revoking their provisions. (12.)It is only reasonable to believe that a person will do whatever means necessary to keep things in their favor. (13.)For example, a robber will more than likely kill the person they are robbing if they feel like that person can rat them out to the police. (14.)If the law-makers wanted to prevent a donee from killing the testator for their benefits in the will, then the law-makers should have established such provision in the statutes. (15.)To argue that Elmer did not let nature take its course, so there is no guarantee that Palmer would have kept his will the same, giving Elmer the estate, is unconvincing. (16.)If you argue that Palmer could have changed his mind about giving Elmer his estate, then you can say that there is no guarantee that Palmer would have left small legacies for his two daughters in his will. (17.)It is morally correct to say that someone who murders someone else should not be rewarded, but the matter here is not one of morality, it is of law. (18.)The laws we must look at are those involving the revocations of wills since the majority opinion seems to be arguing that Palmer"s intention to revoke Elmer"s provisions in the will is sufficient enough to make the will invalid. (19.)However, when looking at the law, this is not the case. (20.)"As Woodwort, Jr., said in Dan v. Brown, 4 Oow.490: "Revocation is an act of the mind, which must be demonstrated by some outward and visible sign of revocation."" (48.3.7). (21.)Palmer never demonstrated any outward or visible signs of revocation, he only manifested the intention of doing so. (22.)To assume that the testator would have altered his will had he known of his grandsons murderous intent is invalid because of revocation statutory regulations. (23.)So, at the time of his death, according to the statutes, his will was valid and should be carried out as is. (24.)There are two cases that justify why the act of revocation is necessary (48.5.1). (25.)In Gains v. Gains (1820), it was urged that the testator intended to destroy his will, and was forcibly prevented from doing so by the defendant; but the Kentucky court of appeals found no evidence of that acts of revocation were made, so the mere intention is not a substitute for the act (48.5.2-4). (26.)In Leaycraft v. Simmons (1854), the court also found that a mere intention to revoke is insufficient even when the testator was being refused his will to make alterations (48.5.5-10). (27.)If the courts ignore the revocation of wills regulations, then they in effect will be creating a new will for the testator. (28.)The laws do not warrant this judicial action, and mere presumption as to what the testator would want is not strong enough to sustain it (49.2.3). (29.)If courts are allowed to make assumptions as to a testators wishes, then wills in general will be pointless since it gives the courts the option to alter them however they feel is right. (30.)Also, if you take away Elmer"s inheritance from the will, you are imposing additional punishments upon him (49.3.2). (31.)As stated in People v. Thornton, "we may not enhance the pains, penalties, and forfeitures provided by law for the punishment of crime" (49.3.4). (32.)Therefore, Elmer should receive the inheritance from the will. Non-controversial: Premises 1 through 10 (facts of the case). Premise 21 " Palmer only demonstrated intent to revoke his will, he never acted on that intent since the will was left unchanged at the time of his death. Premise 12 Premise 20 Premise 25 Premise 26 Controversial: Premise 17 " This is an issue of law not morality because this is a matter of statutory interpretation, not what is right or wrong. Premise 27/28 " Courts should not be creating new wills for testators based off of presumptions because they do not know what the testator would have really wanted. Only a testator knows their best interest and since they created a will before their death giving provisions to certain individuals, then their wishes should be kept. Premise 16 " You cannot argue that Elmer did not let nature take its course so there is no guarantee that Palmer would have kept the provisions in his favor without arguing the same for the plaintiffs in this case because then you are being hypocritical. If there is no guarantee that one would not have received the provisions given to them, then you must assume the same for the other. Premise 14 " Although it is impossible to foresee all possible outcomes of a given situation, it should have been foreseen that a donee would murder a testator since there is civil law that prohibits one from inheriting property/will from a benefactor whom he/she has murdered. Premise 30 - Imposing additional punishments on Elmer would be like imposing additional punishments on an arsonist for the death of a firefighter because a negligent driver was driving to close behind the fire truck when the firefighter fell off. Questions: If you say the will must be void because there is no say as to what Francis Palmer would have done if he survived, then don"t you have to make the will void for his daughters as well? Couldn"t it have been rationale interpreted that a donee might murder a testator in order to receive benefits quicker? Can you give an example of law-makers rationale interpretation for statutes related to this issue?