Riggs v. Palmer summary

1). Francis B. Palmer owned a farm and personal property. (1.2) 2). Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament on August 13, 1880. (1.1) 3). Francis B. Palmer"s will attested that his two daughters Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston receive small legacies while Elmer E. Palmer his grandson, receive the remainder of his estate as long as Elmer outlives Francis and is unmarried and without any issue. (1.1) 4). Elmer knew of the provisions that favored him in Francis"s will so he decided to murder him by poisoning his grandfather to obtain immediate possession of the property entitled to him in the will. (1.5) 5). Elmer claims that by the letter of the law since the will was made in due form he has the right to claim the property. (1.6) 6). It was the intention of law makers that donees should have the property given to them but it was never their intention that the donee who murders the testator to gain the property should have any benefit under it. (3.2-3) 7). The writers of laws did not always express their intention perfectly but because of this they expected judges to use rational interpretation of the language used in the law. (3.6) 8). Since the letter of the law is not expressed perfectly in some cases an equitable construction is drawn which dictates the letter of the statue is sometimes holden to be within the meaning providing a remedy for the mischief. (4.2-3) 9). The construction of statues states if any absurd consequences arise contradictory to common reason then collateral consequences are void meaning if the general language of the law is unreasonable to the case judges have the decency to conclude it was not foreseen by parliament and can disregard it. (4.8-9) 10). As was so in the case of Mutual life Insurance Company v. Armstrong where it was held that the person who murdered the policy owner in order to obtain payment on behalf of the policyholder payable only upon death of the policy owner would forfeit their right to that payment. (7.4-6) 11). Under the circumstances in this case what law will allow Elmer to take the estate of Francis after murdering him to reap the benefits of his crime? (9.2) 12). The rule of a statue can be nullified if a will is procured by fraud, therefore decreeing it void and excluding it from probate so the person who tried inducing the will does not reap the benefit. 13). Thus, I believe Elmer should not be awarded the inheritance. Non controversial- 1-5, 9, 10, 12 Controversial 6, 7, 8, 11 These Statements hold controversy because they only address the intent of what law makers may have wanted to address in the letter of the law. It addresses the fallacies in the common language of the law but it also distinguishes the reasonableness in determining whether or not the language within itself represents a broader intention in administering a viable answer. There is strict language regarding probate statutes, but writers of law cannot anticipate every set of possible facts when drafting a statute. Since there were no previous cases by which to gauge this one, there might have been a duty to set precedence for future cases. The language of the will may not have expressed the exact situation at hand but the equitable construction allowed room for a reasonable modification to be implemented so that in the progression of time and future cases there can be drawn a judgment that would remain relevant. This is why court decided that it could never have been the intention of the legislature that a person who murdered someone could be able to benefit from his or her own wrong doing. Since lawmakers do not always express their intentions perfectly on paper, judges must make a rational interpretation of the legislature"s intentions. The court believed that the legislature would have prevented this particular case if they had thought of such a possibility. The court took a natural law approach to the case determining that certain rights or values are inherent recognizable by virtue of human nature.