Riggs v. Palmer

In August of 1880, Francis B. Palmer created his last will and testament, leaving his estate to his two daughters, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston, and to his grandson Elmer E. Palmer. Elmer lived with his grandfather on a farm which was of considerable worth, along with the other possessions he put into the will. Elmer knew that there was a chance his grandfather could write him out of the will, or that under certain circumstances, he may not be eligible to inherit. His grandfather had, in fact, expressed some intent to change his will. Elmer sought to prevent the possible change by ensuring that his grandfather would die while the current will's legality was solid. Elmer murdered his grandfather by poisoning him, with the intent to ensure he would receive the inheritance of the last will and testament. Elmer did indeed receive the inheritance. The daughters of Francis Palmer brought upon the action to prevent Elmer from receiving an inheritance. Elmer was also tried and convicted of second degree murder, and during the appeal case, was serving time in a reformatory. His claim for the property is based on whether or not his grandfather's will can be open to interpretation. The daughter's claim was based on the fact that Elmer could have possibly prevented the reformation of his grandfather's will. Their claim was based on equitable considerations. These considerations are very much governed by matters of conscience. While conscience can be a consideration in many situations, this specific case has nothing to do with it. The question is not whether or not it was wrong for Elmer to kill his grandfather and if he should receive an inheritance. It is also not a question whether or not it was morally permissible for him to receive the inheritance, however unlawfully he did. Elmer is not to be punished by the revocation of his grandfather's will. This case has nothing to do with the crime Elmer committed. The only question at hand in this case is whether or not a will can be altered or voided, after its testator's death. The property of the dead testator is now subject to complete legal control and does not have the freedom to be interpreted. A last will and testament does not work unless it is bound to strict rules regarding its creation and alteration. These rules are the only way to truly ensure that a testator's property will be protected by law, after his/her death. These rules must be followed to the letter to ensure this protection. There was no specific ordinance written stating that if the testator should die in this way, the will must be altered. That rule had not been written by the testator nor the drafter, and it is also not part of common policy. Just because Elmer committed a criminal act, does not mean he should be punished beyond the justice served for his original act. Elmer should receive the inheritance. Non-controversial claims: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,18,19, not my opponents #7 The facts of this case are clearly stated, and while murder should not be rewarded, that does not apply to this case. Elmer is not being rewarded for the murder of his grandfather. In fact, he had been convicted and sentenced, so he had been justifiably punished. Anything beyond that goes further than what the public demands of a murderer. He received the inheritance not as a reward for his behavior, but because it had been clearly stated in the will of his grandfather, that he would receive property upon the death of the testator, i.e Francis Palmer. You must agree on this fact, as is it based solely on the laws against murder, and the true facts and objectives in this case. As for my non-controversial claims, I am debating the true nature of this case. It is not necessary to decide whether or not Elmer should receive the inheritance based on the morality and legality of the way he sought to receive it. It is about whether or not the last will and testament can be altered or voided after the death of its creator, and if it should, does this situation meet the criteria required to make those changes? There are no other questions in the matter. Controversial claims: 13,14,15,16,17,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27 The law provides people with protection of their property after they should pass, provided they create a will and testament. These legally binding documents are in fact the only ways to protect the property of the deceased. They are not to be taken lightly, and they are not to be open to interpretation. To question them would be to put in jeopardy, the legacy of the testator. These documents must fall under complete legal control. The mindset and potential whims of the testator before his death, should be explicitly avoided, unless they are somehow written into the will. Had Francis Palmer written that his grandson should not receive an inheritance by way of murder, this would be a different case, and I would have to agree with my opponent. However, that is not written in the will, and it is also not law.