Riggs v. Palmer

There is no way to tell that the testator would have potentially changed it , but that still leaves time for him to have changed it. Elmer did not give his grandfather this time to do so. Elmer himself knew his grandfather could have changed his will at any given time which is why he took matters into his own hands and poisoned his grandfather. There still could have been the chance that Elmer himself could have past before his grandfather did and he would have been left with anything. If he would have let nature take it"s course all this could have been avoided. Even if his grandfather wouldn"t have changed the will like you said and past another way then it would"ve been nature taking its course but the fact that Elmer murdered his grandfather in order to receive his inheritance is what makes this whole situation complicated and not to mention going against law itself. The will should be looked at another way because I stated before at law makers can not foresee all possibilities while writing these statues. These law makers aren"t around anymore to ask them what exactly they meant when by this and that statue. Which is why judges are given the right to interpret what the law maker could have meant and with their judgment they make the decision. Any reasonable man having knowledge of this case prior writing the statue for wills would have included this situation in his statue. Before anything when looking at law murder is a crime ! This crime is what brought question to this whole case on whether or not Elmer should inherit his grandfathers estates. Elmer went against the law , this will shouldn"t even be questioned after his crime. Statues against voiding contracts and wills are made for a reason as well to protect the testator from situations as such. No being in his her right mind would allow someone who took their life too inherit their belongings after they are the ones who took their life away. Look at it on another level if you and your friend has an agreement going on that if you were too perish he would not only inherit your position as CEO of your million dollar company, your friend kills you within the next week. After he serves his time in prison he takes up your position as CEO, along with your wealth. Would you have altered your will knowing that your friend had these intentions in mind ? Would you have wanted your friend to still be able to take up you position after you passed? Any reasonable person wouldn"t have wanted this, why would the court even allow this, to allow this would just bring along so many other questions up to questioning law itself being as contracts and wills are said to abide by LAW itself before anything. In the case with Gains v Gains a crime was not committed. Looking at another case of New York Mutual Life Insurace Company v Armstrong it states : " the person who procured a policy upon the life of another, payable at his death, and then murdered the assured to make the policy payable, could not recover thereon" (4.3.5). Elmer murdered his grandfather in order to make the will effective and become the heir to his grandfather"s estates. He should not be allowed too inherit anything. His rights as an heir should be forfeited once the crime was committed despite of what the will says in this particular case. Elmer is not being punished by not receiving Palmers estates. It would just be immoral to let him take up of these estates after literally killing for something that wasn"t his at the time. He tried to make it his by killing which is why he shouldn"t even be able to heir them. The point of wills are too dispose of their properties as they wish to yes I do agree on that. In most circumstances wills should be followed as it is written but once a crime is committed like in this one , things should be looked upon in a whole other perspective being as a violation of law itself has been thrown in. I agree with you to a certain extent about wills and the statues being their to protect them but by voiding this will in particular is actually protecting Palmer who is deceased and clearly doesn"t have a voice in anything going on. His grandson his murderer should not be able to heir Palmers estates.