Riggs v. Palmer

August 13, 1808 Francis B. Palmer made his will, leaving his daughters Mrs.Riggs and Mrs. Preston small legacies along with leaving the remainder of his estate to Elmer E. Palmer his grandson. (1.1.1) Elmer lived with the testator at the date of the will and was 16 when his grandfather died, he was aware of his inheritance after his grandfather would pass. (1.1.4-5) The estates left on the behalf Palmer weren"t one hundred percent certain going to be left to his grandson Elmer.( 1.1.5) Elmers Grandfather could have potentially changed the will.(5.2.1) Obtaining such knowledge of his inheritance, before his grandfather could change his will, and to enjoy his possessions he murdered his grandfather by poisoning him. (.(1.1.5)Poisoning his grandfather is considered murder.(1.1.6) Murder should not be rewarded in any way. (4.3.2) Statues are made for the testator to dispose of their property as they wished but how could have the lawmakers foreseen this. If they could have foreseen this it would have been included in statues. Lawmakers cannot perfectly express themselves while writing these laws, which leaves room for judges to use "rational interpretation", allowing them to interpret the drafters intention as best as he couldIt would be unreasonable to assume the intentions of law are to reward a murderer. (2.3.4) By equitable reconstruction the statue can be looked upon with meaning rather than what is actually written, assuming the lawmaker was a reasonable man and could not have foreseen every detail while writing this law. (3.1.2-6) If lawmakers could have foreseen this situation would they let this young man who murdered his grandfather still take up the estates left in his name? It would be unreasonable to think the intentions of the law were to reward someone who cheated his inheritance by committing a crime. (4.2.1) In certain circumstances we shouldn"t focus on the words used to write the law but rather the intentions behind the words.(4.2.3) All laws and contracts should abide by law itself. Owen vs. Owens a similar case a wife murders husband intentionally becoming a widow to inherit his estates.(6.2.1-5) "Volenti non fit injuria" the widow shouldn"t be able to inherit anything being as she could have died before her husband but she killed him in order to become this widower.(6.2.7) Elmer should not be permitted to take up this property that he gained due to a crime.(6.1) Contracts can be voided if it contains fraud, undue influence or provisions that are immoral. (4.4.2-5.3) If Elmer have taken his grandfathers property by force the law wouldn"t have allowed him to keep it, by committing this crime in a sense he did that , defying the will by fraud and going against public policy. (5.2.6-9 Therefore Elmer should not be able to inherit the estates left to him by the grandfather he murdered. (6.2) Non "controversial: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,15 Controversial: .8,9,10,11,12,13,14,16,17,18,19,20,21. 8,9,10 ,11: Wills are set up for the testators wishes to be granted when he is no longer here . With the wills come laws and rules set up around them, but in situation like this one with Elmer the one to inherit this property how were the lawmakers supposed to foresee a the inheritor would be the murderer of the testator. When Lawmakers are writing these laws sometimes they are unable to express themselves the way they wanted too, being as they can not be asked what they meant judges have the authority by rational interpretation to make his or her own best interpretation as to what the law maker was trying to say assuming he or she was a reasonable person. Equitable Reconstuction a statures meaning could be looked upon rather than what was actually written once again assuming a reasonable law maker was writing it and his intentions could have been something other than what has been written. 12.13,: If law makers could have foreseen this situation that Elmer the grandson murders his grandfather for his estates would you think they would have let him inherit the estates left in his name? It would be morally wrong to reward someone for committing a crime even worse a crime such as murder. To think it would be ok would just be completely unreasonable anyone would be able to agree on that. 15,16: A similar case . Owens wife could have died before he did not making her a widow, she took it into her own hands to become a widow just to inherit her husbands estates. She committed a crime and does not deserve the right the inherit such estates nor the title of widower since she made herself a "widow" to begin with. 14, 17,18,19,20,21: Despite what contracts or wills are they should follow the law to begin with. Committing a crime in this case should be not only a violation of the law but a violation of the will itself , denying his inheritance. He committed a crime knowing his grandfather could have changed the will if he wanted to, he took nature into his own hands and murdered. He should not be able to inherit palmers estates under these circumstances.