Riggs v. Palmer

1.On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament that would benefit Elmer Palmer, the grandson should he survive Francis Palmer . 2.The grandson decided to murder his grandfather to receive his benefits from the will much faster. 3. A will is something created by a person that informs those concerned and the law how to go about their assets. 4. A will informs those concerned exactly what is to be done with their property once they pass. 5. A court cannot assume the creator of a will made a mistake because that will mean that the court is assuming the person who created the will is a reasonable person. 6. If the court assumes that the creator of the will is a reasonable person and they change or adjust a will, then, the judgement of the will, will no longer rest on the hands of the creator but to the courts instead. 7. If a court can adjust or change someones will due to special circumstances, then one can argue that the defendant can then respond to that by saying he would not have murdered the grandfather if he knew he would not have received the assets left to him by the will. 8. The courts claim they will not reward a man from his crimes under law. 9. If the grandson would have killed someone else, he would have received the assets from the the grandfather. 10. Therefore the grandson should receive the assets from the will. Non Controversial: 1. On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament that would benefit Elmer Palmer, the grandson should he survive Francis Palmer . 2.The grandson decided to murder his grandfather to receive his benefits from the will much faster. 3. A will is something created by a person that informs those concerned and the law how to go about their assets. 8. The courts claim they will not reward a man from his crimes under law. Controversial: 4. A will informs those concerned exactly what is to be done with their property once they pass. One may argue that a will should be left for a court to have the last judgement from a will when it is seen to be problematic but that will take away from what ultimately was expected from the creator of the will. If we agree to allow the courts to predict what a reasonable man would have done under special circumstances than we are allowing the court to adjust the will and assume what the person who might or might not be reasonable to make the decision for them. 5. A court cannot assume the creator of a will made a mistake because that will mean that the court is assuming the person who created the will is a reasonable person. By allowing the will to predict what a person would have done if they were alive is asking too much from a court. If a will was followed by the people who were a part of it correctly than the court should not punish someone for finding a loop pole in the will. For example, if the person who created the will states that the only way for the person who is suppose to receive to get the assets is by killing someone, can the court than assume the person is reasonable? 6. If the court assumes that the creator of the will is a reasonable person and they change or adjust a will, then, the judgement of the will, will no longer rest on the hands of the creator but to the courts instead. The point of a will is for the person writing it to allow who ever they assign to follow their wishes with their property. If we allow the courts to adjust this idea, than the very idea of a will is likely to become non-existent. 7. If a court can adjust or change someones will due to special circumstances, then one can argue that the defendant can then respond to that by saying he would not have murdered the grandfather if he knew he would not have received the assets left to him by the will. This does not mean that the grandson should not be punished by law for the murder, but that he should not be punished for his decision to kill his grandfather by taking away his assets due to the outcome of his grandfather dying regardless of how he died. 9. If the grandson would have killed someone else, he would have received the assets from the the grandfather. If the grandson killed someone aside from his grandfather, the kid would have received the property from the will. This idea takes away from the idea that the law does not reward a person for their illegal acts. Even though the kid did not kill his grandfather in this situation, he was still eventually given the property when the grandfather died. Therefore, the court can award someone for an illegal act. Questions: If the grandson was sent to prison for the murder of the grandfather, how will that be an example of getting away with murder if the kid still is going to prison? If we allow the courts to alter wills then wouldn't that compromise the essence of what a will is meant to be?