Riggs v Palmer Case

I am questioning the relevance of bringing religion into the decision. At no point in my argument states religion as being a condition not to be considered a reasonable man. You have also failed to address the speciation that the grandfather had pervious wishes to remove Elmer from the will. The whole argument is surrounded around "His grandfather wished to leave him the estate" but what if that was not true, and that is why Elmer decided to kill his grandfather. You have failed to realize that laws are typically viewed as a reflection of the country. You would have the United States look as a savage civilization in the eyes of the world. That killing someone to receive property is something that we would accept, not only accept but promote. If the court would had granted Elmer"s request, how many more similar cases would occurred. Killing someone for personal gain should be not be permitted in any form. In the New York mutual Life insurance Company v. Armstrong life insurance case, the defendant was not permitted to collect on the life insurance policy. A precedent had been created and the followed that precedent in rejecting Elmer"s claim to the property. If the victim had lived and was forced to a sign contract giving away all his property, the contract would not be enforceable. Why should it be different if the grandfather had dead.Your understanding that statutes cannot be changed is not allowing you to comprehend why Elmer receiving the Property just isn"t accepted able. 1)On August 13 1880 Francis B Palmer made a will leaving a small portion of his estate to his daughters Plaintiffs Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston, and the rest to his grandson Defendant Elmer E Palmer. (508.1.1) 2) He knew of the provisions made in his favor that were in the will. (506.1.4) 3) Palmer looking to obtain the provisions immediately he willfully murdered Francis B. Palmer by poison. (506.1.4) 4) Preventing his grandfather from revoking his inheritance under the will which he had shown some intention in doing so prior to the murder.(506.1.4) 5) Palmer is claiming to have rightful ownership to the property on the will. (507.1.2) 6) It was the intention of law-makers that the inheritance in a will be rightfully passed on to the correct correspondents, however not if a correspondent was responsible for the murder of the testator. (507.2.2) 7) No one should be allowed to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong doing, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime.(508.3.3) 8) Writers of laws do not always express their intention perfectly, usually expanding or shrinking the scope, so that judges could make rational interpretations on how/when to apply these laws. (507.2.4) 9) All laws as well as all contracts may be controlled in their operation and effect by the fundamental 11) The fundamental maxim were applied in the decision of New York mutual Life insurance Company v. Armstrong, in which the person that was entitled to the policy murdered the individual that procured the policy. The court deemed it would be a reproach to the jurisprudence of the country if one could recover insurance money payable on death whose life was felonious taken.(509.3.5-6) 10) If both a will and life insurance are payable on death why should a murderer be permitted to receive one of these benefits if the court has already denied the other. 11) In the case of Owens v Owens, the wife lost all entitlement to support just because she was an accessory before the fact, she did not necessarily kill her husband. (510.3.1) 12) If he had taken the property by force or undue influence had induced Francis Palmer into giving up his property, the law would not permit him to have any right to the property. 13) Therefore Elmer Palmer should have no entitlement to any items in the Will of his grandfather.