Riggs v. Palmer summary

1). Francis B. Palmer owned a farm and personal property. (1.2) 2). Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament on August 13, 1880. (1.1) 3). Francis B. Palmer"s will attested that his two daughters Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston receive small legacies while Elmer E. Palmer his grandson, receive the remainder of his estate as long as Elmer outlives Francis and is unmarried and without any issue. (1.1) 4). Elmer knew of the provisions that favored him in Francis"s will so he decided to murder him by poisoning his grandfather to obtain immediate possession of the property entitled to him in the will. (1.5) 5). Elmer claims that by the letter of the law since the will was made in due form he has the right to claim the property. (1.6) 6) "The question we are dealing with is, whether a testamentary disposition can be altered, or a will revoked, after the testator's death, through an appeal to the courts, when the legislature has, by its enactments, prescribed exactly when and how wills may be made, altered and revoked, and, apparently, as it seems to me, when they have been fully complied with, has left no room for the exercise of an equitable jurisdiction by courts over such matters" (19.3). 7) "To the statutory restraints, which are imposed upon the disposition of one's property by will, are added strict and systematic statutory rules for the execution, alteration and revocation of the will; which must be, at least, substantially, if not exactly, followed to insure validity and performance" (19.5) 8) . "The words of the section of the statute are: "No will in writing, except in the cases hereinafter mentioned, nor any part thereof, shall be revoked or altered otherwise," etc. Where, therefore, none of the cases mentioned are met by the facts, and the revocation is not in the way described in the section, the will of the testator is unalterable" (22.2-3). 9) "The appellants' argument practically amounts to this: That as the legatee has been guilty of a crime, by the commission of which he is placed in a position to sooner receive the benefits of the testamentary provision, his rights to the property should be forfeited and he should be divested of his estate. To allow their 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. Practically the court is asked to make another will for the testator. The laws do not warrant this judicial action, and mere presumption would not be strong enough to sustain it" (24.3-5) 10 "What power or warrant have the courts to add to the respondent's penalties by depriving him of property? The law has punished him for his crime, and we may not say that it was an insufficient punishment. In the trial and punishment of the respondent the law has vindicated itself for the outrage which he committed, and further judicial utterance upon the subject of punishment or deprivation of rights is barred. We may not, in the language of the court in People v. Thornton (25 Hun, 456), 'enhance the pains, penalties and forfeitures provided by law for the punishment of crime' "(25.2-5). 11) Therefore, Elmer should be entitled to his inheritance in the will. Non controversial 1-5. Controversial 6-10 These premises are controversial due to the fact that the courts are altering a will to prevent an evil from being rewarded rather than the will of the testator being respected and implemented proper. When the courts altered the will they in a sense devalued the will and altered it to where the will was of the court not of the original testator. The court made some assumptions that the testator would have possibly made changes if he was still alive but how can a court apply law based on assumptions? The way the statue of a will was designed was no intention that a will was to be altered by a court. By punishing Elmer further by not allowing him his inheritance is questionable that they took it too far when Elmer was already charged for the murder of his grandfather.