Riggs v. Palmer

Murder is relevant to this case in the sense that murder is considered immoral. Once this act of immorality has been committed the will itself should have been voided not only for immorality but also for fraud. The fraud came into the will when he did not let nature take its course as to the possibility that he might have not outlived his grandfather therefore he would have not been able to inherit the estates. Poisoning his grandfather was the fraud to the will, he took it upon himself to kill for the estates that were at the time being left in his name, aware that his grandfather could have potentially changed the will at any given day or time. If Elmer is able to take up this property despite of killing his grandfather it would be considered rewarding his crime. He went against law itself which is what all contracts including wills should abide by to begin with. Even if he was convicted for his criminal acts by giving him the property at the end of the day would only be allowing him to get what he wanted to begin with, and to do so would be letting him get away with criminal acts which are clearly against the law. Moving on to whether or not contracts can be altered , I do understand that wills are made by testators to dispose of their belongings as they would wish too, but in cases like this do you really think it could"ve been a thought in Palmers head that his own grandson would be poison him just to receive his inheritance? Not to mention law makers at the time of creating these statues that protect wills. Who could possibly have foreseen a situation like this? If the law makers would have been able to do so they would have included that in their statues. We must assume that these lawmakers are reasonable men and any reasonable person would not allow such statue to stand strong, especially when a crime is brought into it. Interpretations are allowed to be made under the judge"s rational interpretation once again assuming the law makers could have not been able to express their intentions fully. It would be completely unreasonable to interpret that Palmer in any way would want to leave his estates to his grandson who intentionally killed him. We should not solely focus on just the wording in this case but look more into depth at would he could"ve wanted knowing that he would be killed by the "heir". Owens vs Owens is a great example to look back onto when it comes to this case. In order to become an heir of her husband"s property she would have to become a widow. Like Elmer she took it upon herself to go against nature and intentionally make herself a widower by murdering her husband. She could have potentially died before her husband and never have become a widow, but being as she did intentionally should deprive her from receiving anything. Palmer is in the same circumstance, yes the will states that his grandfather"s estates be left to him, but how could his grandfather have known to include in his will "but not if he intentionally murders me" just because those words are not stated in this will or contract does not necessarily mean that it would be altering the will itself and going against Palmers wishes not to leave the estates to his grandson. Any reasonable man would not leave something to someone who end up being the reason they are longer alive. If they would have known this I am sure Owen would not have left anything to his wife neither. We need to remember that murder is a crime. Once theses Elmer intentionally poisoned his grandfather this contract or will should have been voided. To not void this contract would be immoral and unreasonble. To allow Elmer to inherit these properties will give off the impression that his crime was permissible, because he would still able to receive what he wanted from the start which were the estates. Which is why is state again that murder is a crime and crimes should not be rewarded. Yes he served his time for his crime but allowing him to heir these estates would be rewarding his crime and intention to begin with.