The Instigator
Babble101
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
joseph113011
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Riggs v Palmer Case

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 979 times Debate No: 65652
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Babble101

Con

1)Can a testamentary will be altered or revoked after a testators (person leaving his estates to others) death when legislation has already said how and when a will can be altered and revoked when they have fully complied in-keeping with laws in a way that leaves no room for the courts to intervene over the matter. (516.1.2)
2)On August 13 1880 Francis B Palmer made a will leaving a small portion of his estate to his daughters Plaintiffs Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston, and the rest to his grandson Defendant Elmer E Palmer. (508.1.1)
3)Elmer knew about the will and what he would inherit so he killed his grandfather by poisoning him to get the estate. (509.1.1)
4)Palmer made himself heir by murder and wants to take the property as reward of his crime.(513.3.12)
5)Wills are binding contracts regulated by law. (509.2.4)
6)The will made before Francis" death was made valid by law therefore, the contract should be enforced by law. (509.1.3)
7)The way the court is trying to alter the will in Elmer"s" case is not one written by law. (517.3.10)
8)Only a testator, can legally change or take back a will by law. (517.2.6-7)
9)Laws list the only way a will can be altered.(517.3.8)
10)There"s no written law in a will that says you can"t get the estate if you murder someone and where there"s no such law, courts can"t make changes to wills.(517.1.2)
11)The court is bound by the existing rules at the time, made by legislature, not appeal to conscience.(515.3.9-10)
12)If the law chooses who gets his property they will be writing a whole new will and existing laws do not justify this action by courts. (518.2.10-11)
13)It is an offense against public policy for a will to become effective because of murder and one gets the estate. (513.1.4)
14)The court is bound by rules of currently existing laws made by legislature, not appeal to conscience. (515.3.9-10)
15)Elmer was found guilty of murder and any estate coming from this is affected so Elmer is banned from using anything left by the testator for his benefit since he murdered his grandfather and the property will be given to the widow and Elmer"s mother.
16)To rule in favor of appellant gives additional punishment to the respondent. (518.3,12)
17)Elmer was already tried found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to time in jail for committing the murder. (518.3.13)
18)The law has punished him enough and further punishment is banned. (518.3.14-15)
19) Therefore, the courts have no power to add any additional punishment by taking his property away.(520.1.2)

Non-contoversial
1 , 2 , 3, 5 , 6, 9 , 10 , 12 , 14, 17 ,19

Controversial
4 , 7 , 8 , 11 , 13, 15 , 16 , 18
4 "Palmer made himself heir by murder and wants to take the property as reward of his murder."There is no arguing that he did become heir but he surely did not "make" himself heir nor was the property a "reward". The words in the context of the will gave him the power to become heir therefore the property wasn"t a reward it was given to him by his grandfather"s wishes in the will irrespective of him committing a crime.
7 "The way the court is trying to alter the will in Elmer"s case is not one written by law." Law Explicitly states when a will can be altered but none of the examples are found in Elmers case.

8 "Only a testator can legally change or alter a will" Although there are some provisions of when benefactors want to be removed or if gotten by undue influence the will has to for the most part be kept intact to carry out the testators wishes.

11 "The court is bound by rules made by legislature, not appeal to conscience " Ill feelings will arise out of specific cases but judgment in court should be according to structured laws not emotional impulses.

13 "It is an offense against public policy for a will to become effective because of a murder and one gets the estate" True its an offense against public policy but we can"t move ahead of law and single him out before law has made a distinction to when a public policy should be a standard upheld in court."
15"Elmer was found guilty of murder and any estate coming from this is affected so Elmer is banned from using anything left by the testator for his benefit since he murdered his grandfather and the property will be given to the widow and Elmer"s mother." Elmer was found guilty but what law is the court basing this on.
16 "To rule in favor of appellant gives additional punishment to the respondent." Each state has statues that state the minimum and maximum penalty for second degree murder which Elmer is already serving.
19 "Therefore, the courts have no power to add any additional punishment to Elmer by taking his property away." The 8th Amendment bans the courts from imposing any punishment in excess of what the law has stated.
joseph113011

Pro

1)On August 13 1880 Francis B Palmer made a will leaving a small portion of his estate to his daughters Plaintiffs Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston, and the rest to his grandson Defendant Elmer E Palmer. (508.1.1)
2) He knew of the provisions made in his favor that were in the will. (506.1.4)
3) Palmer looking to obtain the provisions immediately he willfully murdered Francis B. Palmer by poison. (506.1.4)
4) Preventing his grandfather from revoking his inheritance under the will which he had shown some intention in doing so prior to the murder.(506.1.4)
5) Palmer is claiming to have rightful ownership to the property on the will. (507.1.2)
6) It was the intention of law-makers that the inheritance in a will be rightfully passed on to the correct correspondents, however not if a correspondent was responsible for the murder of the testator. (507.2.2)
7) No one should be allowed to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong doing, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime.(508.3.3)
8) Writers of laws do not always express their intention perfectly, usually expanding or shrinking the scope, so that judges could make rational interpretations on how/when to apply these laws. (507.2.4)
9) All laws as well as all contracts may be controlled in their operation and effect by the fundamental maxims of the common law.(509.3.2)
10) These maxims are dictated by public policy and have their foundation universally administered in all civilized countries, and have nowhere been superseded by statues. (509.3.3)
11) The fundamental maxim were applied in the decision of New York mutual Life insurance Company v. Armstrong, in which the person that was entitled to the policy murdered the individual that procured the policy. The court deemed it would be a reproach to the jurisprudence of the country if one could recover insurance money payable on death whose life was felonious taken.(509.3.5-6)
12) If both a will and life insurance are payable on death why should a murderer be permitted to receive one of these benefits if the court has already denied the other.
13) In the case of Owens v Owens, the wife lost all entitlement to support just because she was an accessory before the fact, she did not necessarily kill her husband. (510.3.1)
14) If he had taken the property by force or undue influence had induced Francis Palmer into giving up his property, the law would not permit him to have any right to the property.
15) Therefore Elmer Palmer should have no entitlement to any items in the Will of his grandfather.

Non-Controversial
1,2,3,5,7,8, 11, 13

Controversial
4- Implying that the grandfather was in the process of removing him from the will. Was never stated, grandfather may have just said it in passing with no real meaning behind his words.
6- Implying I know what law maker actually intentions are.
9- We do not know if this is accurate and if they are what the fundamental maxims are.
10- What is considered a civilized country and what are they public policies that they speak of.
12- Deriving a precedent set in another case into this case, where the details are not exactly the same.
Debate Round No. 1
Babble101

Con

(PRO argues)
"If he had taken the property by force or undue influence had induced Francis Palmer into giving up his property, the law would not permit him to have any right to the property."
Francis B Palmer made a will leaving a portion of his estate to his daughters and the rest to his grandson Defendant Elmer E Palmer. (508.1.1) Francis Palmer had freedom of contract in the will to give anyone his estate as he saw fitting. He saw it fitting to give Elmer his estate so he named Elmer the recipient of his estate in his will. Therefore Elmer did not use "Force" to be listed as heir to Francis". Francis made him owner of his estate on his own free will when he made the contract. Contrary to your assumption that Elmer took away Francis" property by force or undue influence.

(Pro argues #12) "If both a will and life insurance are payable on death why should a murderer be permitted to receive one of these benefits if the court has already denied the other."
Your position states that if both contracts are payable at death they are identical contracts therefore, the terms and risks are the same. One necessary condition found in both isn"t enough to conclude that the two contracts are the same and should be bound by the same rules. Workers Compensation and Automobile Insurance contracts are made payable upon injury but we can"t assume based on only that, that the two contracts terms are the same and are made enforceable/void for the same reason. If you enter into a contract with an Automobile Insurance Company and you fall while walking up the stairs at work and get injured you cannot expect the Auto Insurance policy to pay for your injury. Although injury is a condition to make a claim payable the terms does not state that particular injury in the terms for accepting a claim. The Auto policy lists the terms which make a claim payable or void and once agreed upon by the parties involved the court couldn"t intervene after and reasonably say "Workers Comp is made payable at injury like Automobile Insurance policies therefore the Automobile Company has the same terms and has to pay for the injury that occurred at work while walking up a flight of steps." That court action would impose a stipulation not intended for by the car insurance company. If however you do fall while walking up the stairs at your job, and injure yourself on the job, it is possible to qualify for Workers Comp because scenario is included/intended in the Workers Comp contract as one of the criteria to make the policy payable. Likewise if It"s my day off from work and I"m running errands, my car meets in an accident while I"m driving, it would be absurd for me to then want to file a claim with Workers Comp. Although the contract has a necessary condition of injury to make contract payable that particular injury isn"t covered by the terms and agreements in the Workers Comp contract. If the court was to then force Workers Comp to pay they would be imposing a stipulation not intended in the terms of contract. So although Wills and Life insurance policies are contracts payable at death. Life insurance policy"s list explicitly in terms of agreement that "If murder contract will be void and not payable, whereas wills particularly the one in question made by Francis Palmer did not explicitly list murder as a form of making it non payable. There"s no written law in a Will that says you can"t get the estate if you murder someone. Where there is no law, or it"s not listed as a term in the Will the courts cannot then add to the Will, or Contract. After it"s made legal to void it based on something not listed as one of the criteria"s in the contract. Only the testator could change those terms.
(Pro argument #6.) It was the intention of law-makers that the inheritance in a will be rightfully passed on to the correct correspondents, however not if a correspondent was responsible for the murder of the testator.
The only legal role of the courts in regards to wills after they are made legal by law is to ensure that the will is followed through with by making sure the testators wishes provided in the will and the owner listed by testator gets the estate contracted to him. Left up to the lawmakers intent they would not pass on the estate to a murderer However that final say-so is not left up to lawmakers. Lawmakers did not see it fit to make any law/statue to include murder as one of the ways it can void or change a will. They left that freedom-to-contract up to the divisors of the will, skilled lawyers, to account for such an issue in the terms of the contract. As long as a will passes the construction standard by law and isn"t unlawful it is fully enforceable by law.

Elmer is entitled to the property not because it is a reward or punishment but because his grandfather made him the rightful owner of his estate and if that was his will the court cannot dictate who should get or who should not get it. Because "If the law chooses who gets his property they will be writing a whole new will and existing laws do not justify this action by courts." (518.2.10-11)
Questions
1)Does a reasonable person have the right to give away his property to whoever he wants?
2)Are laws bound by the courts or is it that the courts are bound by the laws?
3)If a will is legalized isn"t it recognized as a binding contract?
4)Do you want to let the courts decide when they will not honor your legal wishes based on anything
Other than Law ex, feelings.
5)I believe that emotions do have a place in law because some laws are enacted by public opinion. However there is a process that follows before public opinion can become law. It would be unfair to just jump from the feeling that something doesn"t sit right to your conscience to pushing it through and holding someone liable to the consequence of feeling of ill feelings by the courts. Would you agree or disagree?

6)If we do not uphold and safeguard the freedom of the people to contract with valid legal document what will happen to our property,rights and freedom in the future?
joseph113011

Pro

14) the court is bound by rules of currently existing laws made by legislature, not appeal to conscience. (515.3.9-10) the court in many occasion have changed their minds on different, widening the scope of a particular set of laws. The courts have previously used other cases to create a new standard in the law. It may not be written that if the owner of the will is killed by one of the correspondents, that individual will not be responsible. The courts has used this case as a way to create a precedent , that such an action will not be acceptable.

to rule in favor of appellant gives additional punishment to the respondent. (518.3,12) Con argues that removing Elmer from the will is an example of double jeopardy. That he is not true it is part of his punishment. Removing him from the will should be standard procedure when the individual kills the owner of the will.

Questions:
1)Does a reasonable person have the right to give away his property to whoever he wants?
2)Are laws bound by the courts or is it that the courts are bound by the laws?
3)If a will is legalized isn"t it recognized as a binding contract?
4)Do you want to let the courts decide when they will not honor your legal wishes based on anything
Other than Law ex, feelings.
5)I believe that emotions do have a place in law because some laws are enacted by public opinion. However there is a process that follows before public opinion can become law. It would be unfair to just jump from the feeling that something doesn"t sit right to your conscience to pushing it through and holding someone liable to the consequence of feeling of ill feelings by the courts. Would you agree or disagree?
6)If we do not uphold and safeguard the freedom of the people to contract with valid legal document what will happen to our property,rights and freedom in the future?

Yes a Reasonable person is permitted to give away his property to whomever he may wish, but any reasonable person would agree that they would not wish there property to fall into the hands of the person responsible for their death. Courts are bound by the law, the courts purpose is to interpret laws and open or close the scope of a certain law to fit the public need. Just as in the Constitution of the United States. Not all of rights were directly stated but they could be derived. If law-makers did not believe it would be necessary for them to state "if murderer then no rights to the property". In this particular case the court not only used the law but moral judgment in deciding that Elmer had no entitlement to property. Yes but any binding contract but like any contract they are conditions where the contract can nullified. Certainly murdering the testator is a condition which can nullify an existing contract. The courts are made to decide what is best for the public and allowing this gentlemen to benefit from his wrongdoing, would create the wrong precedent.
Debate Round No. 2
Babble101

Con

Pro Argues #14 "The court is bound by already existing rules not appeal to conscience"
It is true that the court is bound by already existing rules and, "Law lists the ways in which a will can be altered."(517.3.8) However, "There's no written law in making a will that says you can't get the estate if you murder, and when there's no such law courts can't make changes to wills." (517.1.2) At the time of the murder Elmer committed it was noted that there was no existing rule or law banning a murderer from getting an estate in a will.

Pro Argues #10 "The court on many occasions have changed their minds widening the scope of a particular set of laws....It may not be written that if the owner of the will is killed by one of the correspondent"... The court has used this case as a way to create precedent."
(Levi and Lewellyn 11.2-12.1) "In case law there is no statue the judge is not bound by the rule of law made by prior judges." They can accept and broaden an existing law set by RELEVANT precedent cases, to use what the intent of the lawmakers were and cover other cases, as much as they can also choose to REJECT the prior judge's ruling on a case if not enough similarities emerge to extend the rule. Based on your argument #12 "If both a will and life insurance are payable on death why should a murderer be permitted to receive one of these benefits if the court has already denied the other", that one similar condition does not produce enough similarities to extend the rule.

I was not contending that it would be double jeopardy as you stated. I'm defending his 8th amendment right against the courts use of excessive punishment. The Law explicitly lists, for everyone convicted of 2nd degree murder, the amount of time they owe the state. The courts cannot alter the punishment for a particular person and exceed such. He has already been tried, convicted and is serving prison time for 2nd degree murder stemming from the murder of Francis Palmer which is exactly the punishment carried by law for committing second degree murder. Anything in addition to what the law permits would be excessive and discriminatory on the courts part towards Elmer.

Your claim "Any reasonable person would agree that they would not wish their property to fall into the hands of the person responsible for their death", is subjective because surely you have no way of knowing what every reasonable person would agree with. Unless you took a survey of every reasonable persons opinion in which case I would love to see the statistics. Also not only is your claim subjective it excludes and assumes the mass of religious people aren't reasonable. According to Wiki as of 2008 73% of people in the United States identify themselves as Christians, in addition to the many other religions Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Yogi that all believe in forgiveness. Forgiveness pardons, exonerates, grants mercy, clemency and absolution for wrong-doing done unto them. Based on the basic foundation of forgiveness which all of these religious groups are built on I can conclude that the teachings of such religions would want a person to pardon Elmer for his act.
I stand firm in my belief that Elmer should get the property because, "The way the court is trying to alter the will in Elmers case is not one written by law." (517.3.10)
joseph113011

Pro

Pro Argues #14 "The court is bound by already existing rules not appeal to conscience"
It is true that the court is bound by already existing rules and, "Law lists the ways in which a will can be altered."(517.3.8) However, "There's no written law in making a will that says you can't get the estate if you murder, and when there's no such law courts can't make changes to wills." (517.1.2) At the time of the murder Elmer committed it was noted that there was no existing rule or law banning a murderer from getting an estate in a will.
There did not need to be a create rule or law banning such an action. Yes there was no existing rule because no case has had these particular facts to it. The court took into account what on what was the current state on these issue and if a reasonable man would consider this to be fair. In no civil society is murder acceptable, why should murder for be acceptable? Under those conditions it would be accepted to kill someone that you know will be getting you a Christmas gift, in order to obtain it at a faster rate.
Pro Argues #10 "The court on many occasions have changed their minds widening the scope of a particular set of laws....It may not be written that if the owner of the will is killed by one of the correspondent"... The court has used this case as a way to create precedent."
(Levi and Lewellyn 11.2-12.1) "In case law there is no statue the judge is not bound by the rule of law made by prior judges." They can accept and broaden an existing law set by RELEVANT precedent cases, to use what the intent of the lawmakers were and cover other cases, as much as they can also choose to REJECT the prior judge's ruling on a case if not enough similarities emerge to extend the rule. Based on your argument #12 "If both a will and life insurance are payable on death why should a murderer be permitted to receive one of these benefits if the court has already denied the other", that one similar condition does not produce enough similarities to extend the rule.
Yes and in this particular the rejected the idea of allowing a murder the right to obtain property, that would had been his but he choice to violated criminal law. All courts tend to follow previous court decisions, if one can see similarities between the cases. As shown in civil right cases after Brown vs Board of Education, only in extreme cases where the law was a violation of a person constitutional rights, would the courts even consider changing the pervious precedent that had been set. In this particular case Wills and life insurance are similar enough for the court to deny the request for benefits. If you do not consider it an extension of the rule, consider it creating a brand new standard.

I was not contending that it would be double jeopardy as you stated. I'm defending his 8th amendment right against the courts use of excessive punishment. The Law explicitly lists, for everyone convicted of 2nd degree murder, the amount of time they owe the state. The courts cannot alter the punishment for a particular person and exceed such. He has already been tried, convicted and is serving prison time for 2nd degree murder stemming from the murder of Francis Palmer which is exactly the punishment carried by law for committing second degree murder. Anything in addition to what the law permits would be excessive and discriminatory on the courts part towards Elmer.
Yes in criminal law that is all that is permitted to occur to him, however he could also be trailed in civil court and it not be considered double jeopardy. He has not been given any excessive or inhumane punishment, he is serving time in jail for the crime he will fully committed and he was not permitted to enjoy the benefits for the crime he had committed. If it helps you, consider it a seizure of property which he once had right to and he had lost that privilege with his actions.

Also not only is your claim subjective it excludes and assumes the mass of religious people aren't reasonable. According to Wiki as of 2008 73% of people in the United States identify themselves as Christians, in addition to the many other religions Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Yogi that all believe in forgiveness. Forgiveness pardons, exonerates, grants mercy, clemency and absolution for wrong-doing done unto them. Based on the basic foundation of forgiveness which all of these religious groups are built on I can conclude that the teachings of such religions would want a person to pardon Elmer for his act.
I stand firm in my belief that Elmer should get the property because, "The way the court is trying to alter the will in Elmers case is not one written by law." (517.3.10)
The reasonable man is a standard which ALL courts use to evaluate each case. If you are attempting to claim that all courts in the United States is subjective, good luck. However in this case the standard was used to establish that a crime used to benefit financial would not be permitted. When a drug is trialed and convicted, his property is also seizure due to him using an illegal way to obtain the property. As well you have no way of knowing if the grandfather would had changed his mind throughout the course of his life. Preventing his grandfather from revoking his inheritance under the will which he had shown some intention in doing so prior to the murder (506.1.4), He had previously shown some intention of removing the grandson from the well. Nowhere in my argument states religion being a condition to exclude someone from being considered a reasonable man. But yes all those religions practice those techniques however the United States government has no established religion therefore it is not required to practice any of those techniques.
Debate Round No. 3
Babble101

Con

I am confused because in debate #2 you clearly stated "That any reasonable person would agree with Elmer not getting the property", but then when I bring to your attention that that assumption disregards/excludes the reasonable person that practices religion because the basic foundation of above listed religions practice forgiveness, you then claim you never said that in debate #3. That isn't the only inconsistent claim I see in your argument. You then go on to say that he has already been tried in criminal court for murder and convicted and now its down to civil court to determine who the property of the wills rightful owner is, yet you keep on bringing up the fact that he murdered as one of the main defenses as to why he shouldn't be entitled. I'm not disputing if he murdered or if murder is right or wrong I'm dealing with the laws that regulate a will because the case in civil court (as you rightly distinguished) to be answered is "Can the courts change an existing will?". You say they should because of law and moral consideration because he murdered and precedent cases, but you have not recognized that unlike the other contracts you are trying to compare the will to, the wills basic fundamental function is to transfer estates based on the testators wishes and to safeguard such documents from the intervention of the courts . Here I am not going by intent or broadening of a rule, that is the exact law listed by the lawmakers. The contracts you listed to be compared give the government more leeway to interpret them according to rules and laws, whereas a will is regulated before its made but once made and legally recognized the courts only duty then is to execute the testators wishes and make sure the owner listed in the will gets the property. There is no room left for the courts to interpret when the testator is the only one that can change or void the will. I can"t focus on intent and the broadening of a scope of law when the law explicitly states in regards to a will only a testator can change such and if a will is a will at the time of the testators death it must stand as his last wishes. Those pertinent provisions are not found in the contracts you are trying to compare it to. Therefore, I"m not convinced by your argument because it lacks relevant cases to compare, it focuses more on the murder aspect which isn't what civil courts duty is to decide, and it fails to even acknowledge the fundamental difference of the function of a will against courts intervention in respect to the contracts you listed in the precedent cases. Had you done that you would see a will doesn't allow for courts interpretation after it has been legalized only to execute the wishes and make sure someone else other than the one listed in the will doesn't get the property.

My judgement stands that Elmer is entitled to the estate
1) legislation has already said how and when a will can be altered and revoked when they have fully complied in-keeping with laws in a way that leaves no room for the courts to intervene over the matter. (516.1.2)
2)On August 13 1880 Francis B Palmer made a will leaving a small portion of his estate to his daughters Plaintiffs Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston, and the rest to his grandson Defendant Elmer E Palmer. (508.1.1)
3)Wills are binding contracts regulated by law. (509.2.4)
4)The will made before Francis" death was made valid by law therefore, the contract should be enforced by law. (509.1.3)
5)The way the court is trying to alter the will in Elmer"s" case is not one written by law. (517.3.10)
6)Only a testator, can legally change or take back a will by law. (517.2.6-7)
7)Laws list the only way a will can be altered.(517.3.8)
8)There"s no written law in a will that says you can"t get the estate if you murder someone and where there"s no such law, courts can"t make changes to wills.(517.1.2)
9)The court is bound by the existing rules at the time, made by legislature, not appeal to conscience.(515.3.9-10)
10)If the law chooses who gets his property they will be writing a whole new will and existing laws do not justify this action by courts. (518.2.10-11)
11)Elmer was found guilty of murder and any estate coming from this is affected so Elmer is banned from using anything left by the testator for his benefit since he murdered his grandfather and the property will be given to the widow and Elmer"s mother.
12)To rule in favor of appellant gives additional punishment to the respondent. (518.3,12)
13)Elmer was already tried found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to time in jail for committing the murder. (518.3.13)
14)The law has punished him enough and further punishment is banned. (518.3.14-15) Therefore, the courts have no power to add any additional punishment by taking his property away.(520.1.2)
joseph113011

Pro

I am questioning the relevance of bringing religion into the decision. At no point in my argument states religion as being a condition not to be considered a reasonable man. You have also failed to address the speciation that the grandfather had pervious wishes to remove Elmer from the will. The whole argument is surrounded around "His grandfather wished to leave him the estate" but what if that was not true, and that is why Elmer decided to kill his grandfather. You have failed to realize that laws are typically viewed as a reflection of the country. You would have the United States look as a savage civilization in the eyes of the world. That killing someone to receive property is something that we would accept, not only accept but promote. If the court would had granted Elmer"s request, how many more similar cases would occurred. Killing someone for personal gain should be not be permitted in any form. In the New York mutual Life insurance Company v. Armstrong life insurance case, the defendant was not permitted to collect on the life insurance policy. A precedent had been created and the followed that precedent in rejecting Elmer"s claim to the property. If the victim had lived and was forced to a sign contract giving away all his property, the contract would not be enforceable. Why should it be different if the grandfather had dead.Your understanding that statutes cannot be changed is not allowing you to comprehend why Elmer receiving the Property just isn"t accepted able.
1)On August 13 1880 Francis B Palmer made a will leaving a small portion of his estate to his daughters Plaintiffs Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston, and the rest to his grandson Defendant Elmer E Palmer. (508.1.1)
2) He knew of the provisions made in his favor that were in the will. (506.1.4)
3) Palmer looking to obtain the provisions immediately he willfully murdered Francis B. Palmer by poison. (506.1.4)
4) Preventing his grandfather from revoking his inheritance under the will which he had shown some intention in doing so prior to the murder.(506.1.4)
5) Palmer is claiming to have rightful ownership to the property on the will. (507.1.2)
6) It was the intention of law-makers that the inheritance in a will be rightfully passed on to the correct correspondents, however not if a correspondent was responsible for the murder of the testator. (507.2.2)
7) No one should be allowed to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong doing, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime.(508.3.3)
8) Writers of laws do not always express their intention perfectly, usually expanding or shrinking the scope, so that judges could make rational interpretations on how/when to apply these laws. (507.2.4)
9) All laws as well as all contracts may be controlled in their operation and effect by the fundamental 11) The fundamental maxim were applied in the decision of New York mutual Life insurance Company v. Armstrong, in which the person that was entitled to the policy murdered the individual that procured the policy. The court deemed it would be a reproach to the jurisprudence of the country if one could recover insurance money payable on death whose life was felonious taken.(509.3.5-6)
10) If both a will and life insurance are payable on death why should a murderer be permitted to receive one of these benefits if the court has already denied the other.
11) In the case of Owens v Owens, the wife lost all entitlement to support just because she was an accessory before the fact, she did not necessarily kill her husband. (510.3.1)
12) If he had taken the property by force or undue influence had induced Francis Palmer into giving up his property, the law would not permit him to have any right to the property.
13) Therefore Elmer Palmer should have no entitlement to any items in the Will of his grandfather.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.