《里格斯诉帕尔默案判决书》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《里格斯诉帕尔默案判决书（31页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、里格斯诉帕尔默案判决书RIGGS V. PALMER Court of Appeals of New York, 1889里格斯诉帕尔默案，纽约上诉法院，1889年Rights of Legatees-Murder of Testator有关继承人杀害遗嘱人有无继承权的问题 The law of New York relating to the probate of wills and the distributions of estates will not be construed so as to secure the benefit of a will to a legatee who
2、 has killed the testator in order to prevent a revocation of the will. GRAY and DANFORTH, JJ., dissenting.纽约州关于公正遗嘱和分割遗产的法律，不能被解释成继承人为阻止遗嘱人撤销遗嘱，可以通过杀害遗嘱人的方式来获得遗嘱利益。格雷和丹佛斯法官有不同的法律意见。 Appeal from supreme court, general term, third department.上诉来自纽约州最高法院，普通审期，第三法庭。 Leslie W Russell, for appellants. W.
3、M.Hawkins for respondents.莱斯里 W茹塞尔为上诉人辩护；WM豪肯斯为被上诉人辩护。 EARL,J. on the 13th day of August 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament, in which he gave small legacies to his two daughters, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston, the plaintiffs in this action, and the remainder of his estate to his
4、grandson, the defendant Elmer E. Palmer, subject to the support of Susan Palmer, his mother, with a gift over to the two daughters, subject to the support of Mrs. Palmer in case Elmer should survive him and die under age, unmarried, and without any issue. The testator, at the date of his will, owned
5、 a farm, and considerable personal property. He was a widower, and thereafter, in March, 1882, he was married to Mrs. Bresee, with whom, before his marriage, he entered into an antenuptial contract, in which it was agreed that in lieu of dower and all other claims upon his estate in case she survive
6、d him she should have her support upon his farm during her life, and such support was expressly charged upon the farm. At the date of the will, and subsequently to the death of the testator, Elmer lived with him as a member of his family, and at his death was 16 years old. He knew of the provisions
7、made in his favor in the will, and, that he might prevent his grandfather from revoking such provisions, which he had manifested some intention to do, and to obtain the speedy enjoyment and immediate possession of his property, he willfully murdered him by poisoning him. He now claims the property,
8、and the sole question for our determination is, can he have it? 厄尔法官：1880年8月13日，富朗西斯帕尔默立下一份遗嘱，遗嘱约定他的两个女儿里格斯和普瑞斯顿，即该案的原告，只能继承其遗产中很少的一部分；剩余大部分遗产由其孙子即该案的被告埃尔默帕尔默继承，但假如被告埃尔默 帕尔默先于祖父富朗西斯帕尔默死去且未结婚，又不存在其他问题，被告帕尔默的母亲苏珊帕尔默必须将遗产转予富朗西斯帕尔默的两位女儿所有。富朗西斯帕尔默在立遗嘱时，拥有一座农场和一笔可观的财产，他是一个鳏夫，在1882年3月与伯瑞斯夫人结婚，婚前签署了一份协议，约定一
9、旦伯瑞斯夫人后于富朗西斯帕尔默去世，则由伯瑞斯夫人照管农场、管理财产直至去世。被告埃尔默自订立遗嘱时起，一直作为家庭中的一员与富朗西斯帕尔默一家生活在一起，直至其去世，时年埃尔默16岁。被告埃尔默知道遗嘱的内容，推测祖父有可能改变遗嘱，且有迹象表明祖父也试图改变遗嘱，为了阻止祖父改变遗嘱，尽快获得遗产，埃尔默毒死了祖父。现被告埃尔默主张获得遗产，需要我们明确的问题是他能获得遗产吗？The defendants say that the testator is dead; that his will was made in due form, and has been admitted to p
10、robate; and that therefore it must have effect acording to the letter of the law. It is quite true that statutes regulating the making, proof, and effect of wills and the devolution of property, if literally construed, and if their force and effect can in no way and under no circumstances be control
11、led or modified, give this property to the murderer. The purpose of those statutes was to enable testators to dispose of their estates to the objects of their county at death, and to carry into effect their final wishes legally ex pressed; and in considering and giving effect to them this purpose mu
12、st be kept in view. It was the intention of the law-makers that the donees in a will should have the property given to them. But it never could have been their intention that a donee who murdered the testator to make the will operative should have any benefit under it. If such a case had been presen
13、t to their minds, and it had been supposed necessary to make some provision of law to meet it, it cannot be doubted that they would have provided for it. It is a familiar canon of construction that a thing which is within the intention of the makers of a statute is as much within the statute as if i
14、t were within the letter; and a thing which is within the letter of the statute is not within the statute unless it be within the intention of the makers. The writers of laws do not always express their intention perfectly, but either exceed it or fall short of it, so that judges are to collect it f
15、rom probable or rational conjectures only, and this is called rational interpretation; and Rutherford, in his Institutes, (page 420) says: Where we make use of rational interpretation, sometimes we restrain the meaning of the writer so as to take in less, and some times we extend or enlarge his mean
16、ing so as to take in more, than his words express. Such a construction ought to be put upon a statute as will best answer the intention which the makers had in view. Many cases are mentioned where it was held that matters embraced in the general words of statutes nevertheless were not within the statutes, because it could not have been the intention of the law-makers that they should be included. They were taken out of the sta
