Pavel Alexeev BBALLB

1. Is the decision of the majority based on universal and timeless natural law values? Explain you
answer.

Indeed the decision was based on natural law values, as there was no existing law against the crime
Elmer Palmer committed. There was a law against killing someone but no concrete legislation or
statute condemning heirs in cases they murder their testators. If the case would have followed the
positivist approach, it would have been easily resolved and Mr. Elmer would have been able to
collect a part of Francises will. It is well known that civil law evolved from the general principles of
natural law and that law makers didnt deem it sufficiently important to incorporate a precise law or
statue that would prohibit a murder of a testator and if it does indeed happen a killer shouldnt
benefit from his wrongdoing. For these law makers, through interpretation of existing statutes and
laws, it was obvious that those actions must be prohibited and punished accordingly. Following this
reasoning, the decision of the appellate court to deprive palmer from receiving any property from
the will was based on on universal and timeless natural law values. The final decision as well relied
on a presumption that, would have the testator known that mr Palmer wanted to kill him, he
wouldnt have put him in the will. This however is just a presumption by which the court is not
bound, the existing statutory regulation on the other hand is something courts are bound by and
what they should consider when coming to a decision. Precisely for that reason the initial judgment
was in favour of the defendant.

2. Is the will declared void? On what grounds is the estate assigned to the sisters?

Although as mentioned previously, there was no law against his action so in order to make a
decision, the judge made a rationale interpretation of existing common law maxims and stated that
no one shall be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong doing or to profit by his fraud. The
decision to declare the will void was as well dictated by public policy and an interpretation of
several cases like Gains v. Gains (2 Marshall, 190), and an insurance case New York Mutual Life
Insurance Company v. Armstrong (117 U. S. 591). However, primarily judges decision relied on
general principles of natural law and justice that helped to oppose the positivist approach. The estate
was assigned to the sister because Elmer action deprived him of any interest in the estate and made
the plaintiff a true owner of the real and personal estate.

3. Does depriving Palmer from the estate constitute a case of double jeopardy (because he's already
punished under criminal law)? Explain your
answer.

In my opinion depriving Palmer from the estate does not constitute a case of double jeopardy.
Although he is indeed getting punished under criminal law for the act of killing and additionally he
as well gets punished under civil law that deprived him of the right to have the property of testator.
It is common that a criminal gets both criminal and civil charges regarding his crime. In the case of
Riggs v Palmer, Civil law does not take any property away from Elmer, it simply holds that he shall
not receive any property by his crime. Following this train of thought, it is evident that no double
jeopardy exists here as the criminal charge condemned him to prison for the act of murdering while
the civil one punished Palmer for depriving the victim from enjoying his property and disturbing the
intended path of transferring of such property.

4. Is the minority opinion a positivist one? Explain your argument.

As mentioned previously, the minority opinion is indeed a positivist one as they solely interpret the
law without considering other relevant aspects like, intentions, rights and morals sentiments.
 Pavel Alexeev BBALLB
Following this way of thinking it is clear that Palmer shall be punished only for murder and should
not be deprived of his right to receive the property that the testator has left for him. This was the
decision of the first instance court, where the statuary rule was strictly interpreted and the claim to
disinherit mr Palmer failed. This decision was as well supported by case law, more specifically Dan
v Brown and Goodright v Glasier, both of these cases revolved around an idea that without a clear
demonstration of the intent to revoke the will there can be no revocation. Furthermore the statue of
this state implied a prohibition of any alteration or revocation of an existing will. However the
appellate court reversed the initial decision by interpreting the statute in favour of the plaintiff.