Riggs v. Palmer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An important New York court case, Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506 (1889), in which the Court of Appeals of New York issued an 1889 opinion, was an example of the judiciary using the "social purpose" rule of statutory construction, the process of interpreting and applying legislation.

1 Facts of the case
2 Majority opinion
3 Dissent
4 External links

[edit] Facts of the case

In Riggs, a probate suit, the plaintiffs, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston, sought to invalidate the will of their father Francis B. Palmer; testated on August 13, 1880. The defendant in the case was Elmer E. Palmer, grandson to the testator. The will gave small legacies to two of the daughters, Mrs. Preston and Mrs. Riggs, and the bulk of the estate to the Elmer Palmer to be cared for by his mother, another daughter of the testator, Susan Palmer, until he became of legal age.

Knowing that he was to be the recipient of his grandfathers large estate, Elmer, fearing that his grandfather might change the will, murdered his grandfather by poisoning. The plaintiffs argued that by allowing the will to be executed Elmer would be profiting from his crime. While a criminal law existed to punish Elmer for the murder, there was no statute under either probate or criminal law that invalidated his claim to the estate based on his role in the murder.

[edit] Majority opinion

Judge Robert Earl (1868-1894) wrote the majority opinion for the court, which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The court reasoned that tenets of universal law and maxims would be violated by allowing Elmer to profit from his crime. The court held that the legislature could not be reasonably expected to address all contengencies in crafting laws and that, had they reason to suspect one might behave in the manner Elmer did, they certainly would have addressed that situation.

Judge Earl, in an analogy to a similar case, wrote: "The principle which lies at the bottom of the maxim, volenti non fit injuria ['to a willing person, no injury is done'], should be applied to such a case, and a widow should not, for the purpose of acquiring, as such, property rights, be permitted to allege a widowhood which she has wickedly and intentionally created."

[edit] Dissent

Judge John Clinton Gray (1888-1913) dissented. He argued that the criminal law established punishment for the murder of Francis Palmer. For the court to deny the estate to Elmer was to, in effect, add significant further punishment to what Elmer received under the criminal statute, something the court was not permitted to do without the express, written statute. The written statutes that existed did not sanction the action of the court and the court cannot simply create or imagine such statutes so as to obtain a morally pleasing result.