Riggs v. Palmer summary

In your response to premise 6 -10 "Since Elmer murdered his grandfather for the intention of receiving property in favor of him provided in the will, is it not the courts job in this case to find out whether the lawmakers of the statute intended for a person to benefit from their crime if no provisions in the will states anything about it?" In some cases yes, but in this situation the court's decision to go against the will contradicts the main purpose of what a will is suppose to do. If I wrote in my will that my daughter is to get my car; is it not my wish that at that moment I made that decision the only thing that matters? The court cannot possibly know all the circumstances on the relationship between Elmer and his grandfather that they can decide he was not worthy entitlements in the will. But to answer the question in a different way it should not be the court's business on what the will gave inheritance to. The court should have only focused on the fact that Elmer murdered his grandfather. By also punishing Elmer the court took it too far when they decided that not only are you a murderer but we are also going to take your newly acquired property as well. (Statement 10 response) Can we know for sure that Elmer's intentions of murdering his grandfather was for his inheritance of the will alone? If I plotted to murder my grandfather for a week and I finally proceeded and accomplished it while at the same time my grandfather wrote a will within that week should I also not receive my benefits of the will? In the case it states " He knew of the provisions made in his favor in the will, and, that he might prevent his] grandfather from revoking such provisions, which he had manifested some intention to do, and to obtain the speedy enjoyment and immediate possession of his property, he willfully murdered him by poisoning him" (1.4). Only some intention was proven and is not completely clear that his intention was entirely to obtain his inheritance so the court reasoning that his inheritance should also be void with the charge of murder seem to be excessive. (Statements 7,8,9 response) "It merely took into consideration the factors and all possible scenarios involved in this case and made a rational interpretation of how a reasonable man would have responded to changes of the will if he was aware of unforeseeable actions". There will always be unforeseeable actions in writing a will. If I made a will that promised one of my two children that they each would receive one of two of the cars I owned, but one of the cars ends up being destroyed, should it be that both of my children would now have to share the one car that remains because my original intentions was to leave two cars in my passing? His will did not state "if I was to be murdered by any of the person(s) mentioned in this will that person(s) shall not inherit anything". Therefore, the grandfather did not fully construct his will to protect himself from being murdered due to greed (if it truly was greed as Elmer's intention). In response to your question " How did the court devalue the will when all but one of the recipients retained the property through a non-fraudulent manner?" The courts have devalued the will because not all of the recipients received what was originally written in the will. By not following the will in a strict manner the court did not follow the will 100%. In your example of not being able to foresee the circumstances to the grandfather's murder. If you take out a loan to attend college but fail to obtain a job to pay back those loans at agreed time should the court then take that contract and change it to meet the needs of the college student because the student did not foresee that his financial situation would not be stable enough to pay back his debt? Also in your 7th premises you mentioned that lawmakers don't express their intentions perfectly since the lawmakers failed to place murder under the statue of a will, why should we punish Elmer for being although evil, but in a way cleaver to achieve inheritance quicker? What gives reason or should we allow courts to make this ex post facto effect to deny Elmer's inheritance on a statue that did not cover murder and a will that did not specify a evil act of death?