Riggs v. Palmer

1.August 13, 1808 Francis B. Palmer made his will, leaving his daughters Mrs.Riggs and Mrs. Preston small legacies along with leaving the remainder of his estate to Elmer E. Palmer his grandson. (1.1.1) 2. Elmer lived with the testator at the date of the will and was 16 when his grandfather died, he was aware of his inheritance after his grandfather would pass. (1.1.4-5) 3.The estates left on the behalf Palmer weren"t one hundred percent certain going to be left to his grandson Elmer.( 1.1.5) 4.Elmers Grandfather could have potentially changed the will.(5.2.1) 5.Obtaining such knowledge of his inheritance, before his grandfather could change his will, and to enjoy his possessions he murdered his grandfather by poisoning him. (.(1.1.5) 6.Poisoning his grandfather is considered murder.(1.1.6) 7. Murder should not be rewarded in any way. (4.3.2) 8.Statues are made for the testator to dispose of their property as they wished but how could have the lawmakers foreseen this. 9.If they could have foreseen this it would have been included in statues. 10.Lawmakers cannot perfectly express themselves while writing these laws, which leaves room for judges to use "rational interpretation", allowing them to interpret the drafters intention as best as he couldIt would be unreasonable to assume the intentions of law are to reward a murderer. (2.3.4) 11.By equitable reconstruction the statue can be looked upon with meaning rather than what is actually written, assuming the lawmaker was a reasonable man and could not have foreseen every detail while writing this law. (3.1.2-6) 12.If lawmakers could have foreseen this situation would they let this young man who murdered his grandfather still take up the estates left in his name? 13.It would be unreasonable to think the intentions of the law were to reward someone who cheated his inheritance by committing a crime. (4.2.1) 14.In certain circumstances we shouldn"t focus on the words used to write the law but rather the intentions behind the words.(4.2.3) 15.All laws and contracts should abide by law itself. 16.Owen vs. Owens a similar case a wife murders husband intentionally becoming a widow to inherit his estates.(6.2.1-5) 17."Volenti non fit injuria" the widow shouldn"t be able to inherit anything being as she could have died before her husband but she killed him in order to become this widower.(6.2.7) 18.Elmer should not be permitted to take up this property that he gained due to a crime.(6.1) 19.Contracts can be voided if it contains fraud, undue influence or provisions that are immoral. (4.4.2-5.3) 20.If Elmer have taken his grandfathers property by force the law wouldn"t have allowed him to keep it, by committing this crime in a sense he did that , defying the will by fraud and going against public policy. (5.2.6-9 21. Therefore Elmer should not be able to inherit the estates left to him by the grandfather he murdered. (6.2) My argument stands I still believe that Elmer should not be able to take up any of this inheritance left to him by his grandfather Palmer due to the simple fact that he killed for it. I do understand that wills are made with statues for a reason but who could have foreseen a situation as this one. If that was the case then law makers would have added this into their statues assuming that he or she was a reasonable person of course. My opponent is focused on the will and it being the testator"s wishes and how they should be followed as written. Elmer cheated the will how are we to know he was not to die before his grandfather and not inherit or a thing or his grandfather could have changed the will. He knew all this was possible so he murdered his grandfather intentionally, if this was all an accident it would be looked upon a different way but the intent was clearly present. Not many cases like this have occurred but similar ones to it with murder involved all voided the contracts due to murder, which should be the case in this situation as well. The will should be voided for a crime has been committed going against law itself which is what wills and contracts are based on to begin with which is to abide by the law. For these reasons I believe that Elmer should not be able to heir these estates