Riggs V's Palmer

(1.)The defendant killed the testator who was the owner of the property and hurt his chances of getting the property himself from the will. (2.)Allowing the murderer to get his rewards from the will after killing the testator for it, will reward the murderer for his crime. (3.)The question is whether the court can alter or change the will even if the one who wrote the will is dead and the one who deserves to get his rewards from the will outlived the testator. (4.)There are strict laws that deal with how a will should be executed and it should be the same not altered. (5.)In Roman law, the person who committed a crime was simply punished for the crime he committed. (6.)The rewards that an individual deserved was given to the person even if there was a crime committed. (7.)There are many statutes that say how a will can be altered and changed but the way in which the testator was murdered by the defendant who was supposed to receive his rewards from the will is not on any statute saying that the will can be altered or changed based on this. (8.)There is a statute that says that a will that has been written shall not be altered or revoked except for the prior cases or criteria that were mentioned in the other section of the statute. (9.)In a case called Goodright vs Glasier a judge had said that if a man lets his will stand till he dies then the will is his however if he lets it suffer to do so, than it is not his will. (10.) Just because the testator may have changed his will due to the fact of the crime does not effect the real question being asked in this case of whether the court can alter or change the will. (11.) There is not sufficient support of any argument or case that can defend the notion of not giving the rewards from a will to the person who deserves his earnings because of a criminal act that was committed by the person who receiving his rewards. (12.)The argument against the defendant is that the defendant has committed a crime and is being deprived of his property that he should be getting from the will due the crime he has committed. (13.)Allowing the court to not give the property to the one who is listed on the will to receive the property will then make the possibility for the court to give the property away to someone else that the testator may not have wanted to give the property to. (14.)The court is basically making a new will. (15.)The laws do not support the courts making new wills people and this case does not support it either. (16.)Taking away the property from the defendant is adding another punishment to the defendant. (17.)The court does not have the power to add on more punishment to the defendant"s punishment that was already given. (18.)Therefore, Palmer should receive his inheritance from the will. Non-Controversial- (1.), (3.), (4.), (5.), (7.), (8.), (9.), (11.), (12.), (14.), (15.), (16.), (17.), (18.) Controversial- (2.) - Allowing the murderer to get his rewards from the will after killing the testator for it, will reward the murderer for his crime. This is controversial because it is not necessarily rewarding the criminal for his crime, in this case the criminal is being rewarded because it was part of a legal document called a will in which when the person who wrote the will passes away, then the people on the will should get their rewards. (6.) The rewards that an individual deserved was given to the person even if there was a crime committed. This premise is too vague. No actual evidence was given that states that a person was rewarded all the time even if they did commit a type of crime. (10.) Just because the testator may have changed his will due to the fact of the crime does not effect the real question being asked in this case of whether the court can alter or change the will. This is controversial because this may not be the question being asked on the view of other people. Others may think that the question of this case is whether or not the defendant should get his inheritance or not, not that should the will be altered or changed. (13.) Allowing the court to not give the property to the one who is listed on the will to receive the property will then make the possibility for the court to give the property away to someone else that the testator may not have wanted to give the property to. This is controversial because we cannot assume that the testator would have not wanted to give the property to the person the court would have given the property to.