Riggs v Palmer Case

1)Can a testamentary will be altered or revoked after a testators (person leaving his estates to others) death when legislation has already said how and when a will can be altered and revoked when they have fully complied in-keeping with laws in a way that leaves no room for the courts to intervene over the matter. (516.1.2) 2)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) 3)Elmer knew about the will and what he would inherit so he killed his grandfather by poisoning him to get the estate. (509.1.1) 4)Palmer made himself heir by murder and wants to take the property as reward of his crime.(513.3.12) 5)Wills are binding contracts regulated by law. (509.2.4) 6)The will made before Francis" death was made valid by law therefore, the contract should be enforced by law. (509.1.3) 7)The way the court is trying to alter the will in Elmer"s" case is not one written by law. (517.3.10) 8)Only a testator, can legally change or take back a will by law. (517.2.6-7) 9)Laws list the only way a will can be altered.(517.3.8) 10)There"s no written law in a will that says you can"t get the estate if you murder someone and where there"s no such law, courts can"t make changes to wills.(517.1.2) 11)The court is bound by the existing rules at the time, made by legislature, not appeal to conscience.(515.3.9-10) 12)If the law chooses who gets his property they will be writing a whole new will and existing laws do not justify this action by courts. (518.2.10-11) 13)It is an offense against public policy for a will to become effective because of murder and one gets the estate. (513.1.4) 14)The court is bound by rules of currently existing laws made by legislature, not appeal to conscience. (515.3.9-10) 15)Elmer was found guilty of murder and any estate coming from this is affected so Elmer is banned from using anything left by the testator for his benefit since he murdered his grandfather and the property will be given to the widow and Elmer"s mother. 16)To rule in favor of appellant gives additional punishment to the respondent. (518.3,12) 17)Elmer was already tried found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to time in jail for committing the murder. (518.3.13) 18)The law has punished him enough and further punishment is banned. (518.3.14-15) 19) Therefore, the courts have no power to add any additional punishment by taking his property away.(520.1.2) Non-contoversial 1 , 2 , 3, 5 , 6, 9 , 10 , 12 , 14, 17 ,19 Controversial 4 , 7 , 8 , 11 , 13, 15 , 16 , 18 4 "Palmer made himself heir by murder and wants to take the property as reward of his murder."There is no arguing that he did become heir but he surely did not "make" himself heir nor was the property a "reward". The words in the context of the will gave him the power to become heir therefore the property wasn"t a reward it was given to him by his grandfather"s wishes in the will irrespective of him committing a crime. 7 "The way the court is trying to alter the will in Elmer"s case is not one written by law." Law Explicitly states when a will can be altered but none of the examples are found in Elmers case. 8 "Only a testator can legally change or alter a will" Although there are some provisions of when benefactors want to be removed or if gotten by undue influence the will has to for the most part be kept intact to carry out the testators wishes. 11 "The court is bound by rules made by legislature, not appeal to conscience " Ill feelings will arise out of specific cases but judgment in court should be according to structured laws not emotional impulses. 13 "It is an offense against public policy for a will to become effective because of a murder and one gets the estate" True its an offense against public policy but we can"t move ahead of law and single him out before law has made a distinction to when a public policy should be a standard upheld in court." 15"Elmer was found guilty of murder and any estate coming from this is affected so Elmer is banned from using anything left by the testator for his benefit since he murdered his grandfather and the property will be given to the widow and Elmer"s mother." Elmer was found guilty but what law is the court basing this on. 16 "To rule in favor of appellant gives additional punishment to the respondent." Each state has statues that state the minimum and maximum penalty for second degree murder which Elmer is already serving. 19 "Therefore, the courts have no power to add any additional punishment to Elmer by taking his property away." The 8th Amendment bans the courts from imposing any punishment in excess of what the law has stated.