Riggs v. Palmer: Disallowing inheritance of will

1.On August 13th, 1880 Francis Palmer, grandfather, created his last will, giving small legacies to his two daughters, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston (Plaintiffs), and remainder of the estate to his grandson, Elmer Palmer (Defendant). The legacies would be subject to the support and supervision of Susan Palmer. (45.1.1) 2.Elmer Palmer lived with his grandfather from the time the will was executed, and had clear knowledge of the provisions at stake. With the knowledge Elmer had, he was afraid that his grandfather would change his mind and revoke the provisions in favor of Elmer"s interests. There was intention made by the grandfather at one point, which furthered anxiety in Elmer"s mind. (45.1.5-6) 3.To get a head start on the benefits of the will and to prevent any potential changes to the will, Elmer decided to poison his grandfather. (45.1.6) 4.The question before the Court today is whether Elmer can take the estate and enjoy the fruits of his crime. (47.1.1) 5.In this probate suit, Defendants allege that the testator is dead and his will was made with fair procedure, admitted to the probate and therefore must have effect, with accordance to the letter of the law in Trusts and Estates. (45.2.1) 6.Moreover, it is the intention of the statute and the lawmakers advancing the statute that the donees in a will should have the property given to them, and that the testators final wishes are legally expressed without absolutely any modification or control of the will by the Courts. (45.2.2-2-4) 7.However, it must be noted, the lawmakers never intended, at the time of passing the statute, that the benefiting party who murders the testator should be privileged to benefit under testators will, so it could not possibly be in the statute. (45.2.5) 8.Lawmakers who pass laws do not always draft up their intentions with perfection, allowing judges to conjecture probable or rational thoughts " rational interpretation. (46.1.4) 9.In essence, no one is entitled to benefit from fraud, or to take advantage and acquire property by committing a convenient crime. 10.The United States functions under a common law system. 11. Under the common law of inheritance, the slayer rule is in effect, which disallows inheritance when the inheriting party commits a murder. 12.Additionally, the slayer rule was corroborated in the case of New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong (1886), where the Court disinherited the slayer because of the public policy principle that a slayer should not profit from his crime. 13.In New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong (1886), the court justified its decision with the following, "It would be a reproach to the jurisprudence of the country if one could recover insurance money payable on the death of the party whose life he had feloniously taken." 14.The same approach has to be taken in our case, because Elmer poisoned his grandfather to receive property from the death of his grandfather. 15.Aside from the language, we find that all laws, and contracts made between two parties, operate on the premise of general and fundamental maxims of the common law system, which can control and effect operation of a will. In other words, no person should have a personal gain from deception, and may not acquire property by his own crime. (46.3.4-5) 16.Maxims described above are detailed by public policy and have their roots in universal law, and are supreme to statutes. (46.3.6) 17.A will that operates by fraud and deception and is against public policy has to be made void. 18.In this case, there was no guarantee that Elmer would survive Francis, as he could"ve died first. Also, Francis Palmer could"ve switched up his will to fit his specific desire. In essence, many different actions could"ve occurred that would"ve negated Elmer"s interests in the estate. By murdering Francis, Elmer established his interest. (46.4.1-2) 19.By committing the crime, Elmer made the will speak and operate in his opportunistic favor. Is he allowed to gain from his act? It is clear that if he had met up with Francis and took his property by force there would be no title granted, that is clear and cut. (47.1.3-5) 20.To allow Elmer title and access to the estate would be a reproach to the jurisprudence of the state, and as discussed before, a blatant offense to public policy. (47.1.8) On August 13, 1880, Francis Palmer made his last will and testament that would benefit Elmer Palmer, the grandson, should he survive Francis Palmer. The grandson, Elmer Palmer knew of such provisions and proceeds to conveniently murder his grandfather to rush his inheritance from his grandfather"s will. As explained, A will, under trust and estate laws, is like a contract and when things aren"t made explicit in the will, it is a serious problem for the court. A will is a form of contract binding all parties involved. Contracts are declared unconscionable under certain situations of unfairness, where two individuals are assumed to be responsible. The courts under certain conditions can change certain provisions in a will, by method of rational interpretation. Through rational interpretation, the court found that the grandfather was unprepared for Palmers devious intentions and would not have rewarded Palmer for his murder. Under the common law of inheritance, the slayer rule is in effect, which disallows inheritance when the inheriting party commits a murder. Therefore, Palmer should not receive the inheritance appurtenant to the will. In this debate, I believe I have presented overwhelming evidence as to why my argument should stand and have more weight. In response to your example on government interfering with religion, that should quickly be discounted because the government, as pronounced by Thomas Jefferson"s Wall of Separation, is not allowed to infringe on our religion. That is clearly spelled it in the 1st Amendment pertaining to our freedom of religion. The government is not allowed to create a national religion (establishment clause), nor is it allowed to infringe on the free exercise of individuals" religion (free exercise clause). With regard to your thought on morals and the law, I agree with you and believe that morals have no right or wrong but when it comes to public morality the line should be drawn and identified. Public morality concerns you and the broader society as a whole, and so we can safely say that murder is wrong. Public morality is a justified idea in society. What makes a society of any sort is community of ideas not only political ideas but also ideas about the way its members should behave and govern their lives; these latter ideas are its morals. This idea by Lord Devlin may have influenced Justice Earl in his decision, even though it may have played a small role in the decision. The court can assume that granting Palmer his inheritance is immoral. You should not be rewarding someone for an act of murder, which is simply wrong.