Riggs V's Palmer

1.)On August 13th 1880, Francis B. Palmer created his will and testament in which his two daughters Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston received two small legacies while Elmer E. Palmer his grandson, received the remainder of his estate as long as Elmer outlives Francis and is unmarried and without any issue. 2.)Francis owned a farm and property at the time of the will. 3.)Elmer the grandson knew about his earnings in the will and so before his grandfather Francis can take his earnings away, Elmer murdered Francis by poisoning him so that he can get his reward from the will immediately. 4.)The question is whether Elmer can have his earnings or not. 5.)Since Francis the testator the one who wrote the will is dead, the defendant says the will must go into effect. 6.)There is no way that a will can be controlled or modified. 7.)The purpose of the will is for testators to be able to give away their belongings when they die based on what they legally requested to be done with their belongings. 8.)The intention of the will is for the ones who deserve their earnings from a will receive their will. 9.)However the intention is not for the one who wrote the will to be murdered and for the person under the will to receive the rewards. 10.)No one is allowed to profit from fraud, or take advantage of wrong doings, or to acquire property by committing a crime. 11.)Those rules were applied in the case of New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong in which a person who kills another person and receives some form of payment from the death of that person could not receive any form of payment. (1.7.4) 12.) A will that is done by Fraud and deception could be made void and checked so that a section of the will may be altered or removed if it is in favor of the person who caused the fraud and deception. 13.) A will that is against public policy, irreligious, or immoral will be made void. (1.8.3) 14.) It was not guaranteed that the murderer was going to outlive the testator or that the murderer would have got his rewards at all. 15.) Palmer could have been taken off the will or maybe have died before his grandfather died. 16.) He wants his property from the will after forcing the guarantee of the will by murdering his grandfather. 17.) Therefore, property is not being taken away, a person will not be rewarded for a criminal action that they committed and so Palmer should not recieve the inheritence from the will. Non-controversial - (1.), (2.), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (10), (11), (12), (13), (16), (17) Controversial - (5) Since Francis the testator the one who wrote the will is dead, the defendant says the will must go into effect. This is controversial because just because the defendant is saying that the will must go into effect does not necessarily mean that the will must go into effect and he gets his earnings. (9) However the intention is not for the one who wrote the will to be murdered and for the person under the will to receive the rewards. This is controversial because it is to vague to say in which it does not specifically say who murdered the testator in this premises. One could say that the testator was murdered by someone else and the people under the will will have to get their earnings under the will. Also it is controversial because there is no law that says that just because the person under the will is murdered by one of the people or the person under a will, does not mean that the person or people under the will do not get their earnings. (14) It was not guaranteed that the murderer was going to outlive the testator or that the murderer would have got his rewards at all. This is controversial because one cannot assume that the testator was going to live longer than the murderer or whether the murderer would have died before the testator and he would have not been able to claim his rewards from the will. (15) Palmer could have been taken off the will or maybe have died before his grandfather died. This is controversial because we cannot predict the future and assume that Palmer would have been removed from the will or that he maybe would have passed away before his grandfather.