Rigg V Palmer Case Summary

In the early 1880s, Elmer Palmer murdered his grandfather, Francis Palmer to ensure that he would be unable to change his will. The younger Palmer believed that his grandfather was going to lessen his inheritance after being remarried. While the criminal case against Elmer was without any controversy, the question soon became whether he would be able to receive the inheritance from his grandfather. This issue was resolved when two of Francis’ daughters, who would have only received a small inheritance in comparison to Elmer, brought a civil case against him to have the will invalidated. The decision in Riggs v. Palmer (1889) became one of great importance, not because of the decision itself, but because of the reasoning behind the majority opinion. Rather than basing the decision on purely legal principles, Judge …show more content…
Earl also noted the principle that a person should not be able to benefit from their crime. On the other hand, Judge Gray wrote the dissenting opinion and claimed that because the law was silent on the issues brought up in this case, they had to follow the related laws as closely as possible, which meant being unable to invalidate the will. He also argued that the precedent in other cases was for the court to not invalidate a legal document such as a will based solely on the potential intentions of the testator. Considering the facts in this case, it is clear that the correct decision was made when examining legal principles and the desires of the deceased, while relying on both legal realism and natural law theory. There are a couple of legal principles that could be used to justify the decision in Riggs v. Palmer, the first of which is deterrence. Deterrence is a concept that is central to lawmaking, it encourages lawmakers to create laws with punishments that discourage others from committing crimes. In this case, the court needs to send a message to society that citizens are unable to benefit from