Riggs v. Palmer summary

(Premise 6-10 response) In the two questions presented it is easy to play a form of a "what if" to defend the courts actions. But how should a testator go about writing his or her will then to prevent such cases? If a testator has to always predict that they might be murdered by the person(s) in the will why even make the will? When writing a will a testator's intentions are not a "what if" I was murdered by the person(s) mentioned in this will it is a "this person(s) gets this in my death" state of mind. I think you are missing the certain area I am trying to touch upon. At the time a testator writes a will he is giving away property to those he wishes to obtain it. If murdered by a person(s) within the will where is it that it is the courts responsibility to not only punish a person for the crime of murder but to take the role of being the testator and making altercations to the will. In your example about my daughter under public policy is not true. Public policy "demands are satisfied by the proper execution of the laws and the punishment of the crime" (24.2). The stages of this case went like this: Elmer knew he was getting inheritance from his grandfather, Elmer murdered him, Due to Elmer's intentions the court should deny all Elmer his inheritance and change the contract . The law did not grand the court permission to do this (24.3-5). A testator doesn't write a will for it to be void it is written to pass out property at time of death I would feel cheated if I write a will just to be changed with the possibility of someone else getting the property I stated otherwise. (Statement 10 response) The "intention" to revoke a will should not be accepted as being an "effective" way to revoke a will in Dan v. Brown (4 Cow. 490): "Revocation is an act of the mind, which must be demonstrated by some outward and visible sign of revocation." (22.5-6). The statement you highlighted shows there was intentions from Elmer but there can never be a "visible sign of revocation" from the grandfather due to his death. "To [the] argument to prevail would involve the diversion by the court of the testator's estate into the hands of persons, whom, possibly enough, for all we know, the testator might not have chosen or desired as its recipients" (24.5). Even if the courts were allowed to alter the will due to fraudulent means how can they have full knowledge on how the testator would alter the will? They would have to know what the testator would like to have certain parts of his property. This leads a chance of the courts making a decision where the testator might not even approve the new altered will the court has presented. The grandfather in this case may have seen Elmer being the only one to be a perfect candidate to his original inheritance. How do the courts alter the will that they believe the testator would approve without knowing the testator? (Statement 7-9 response) You stated " Elmer was entitled to the property until he decided to create a loophole through the plain language of the law". Elmer did not make any changes to the will he only made it so his inheritance was granted sooner. Elmer being punished for murder is one case as to the court changing a will is the issue alone. It should be the testator alone who makes those changes because he cannot make any how is it the court's decision to make that change for him? and how can the court be sure the changes they make are even what the testator would want? They cannot possibly know for sure so in a sense they will alter the will that they see is right. This makes the will the court's not the grandfathers. `I agree " Elmer is being punished for murder which is a criminal act". But that is where it should end. I do not believe this gives the courts the right to take it even further by changing a contract. The court is the third party in this case who takes control of the whole situation. The Grandfather did not and could not show any sign of visible alteration or voiding the will. The idea the courts are allowed to grant this permission on to themselves is not the right action.