里格斯诉帕尔默案判决书

里格斯诉帕尔默案判决书

（中英文对照，初定稿）

（赵玉增 译 李 鸻 校）

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

有关继承人杀害立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 has killed the testator in order to prevent a revocation of the will. GRAY and DANFORTH, JJ., dissenting.

纽约州关于遗嘱检验和分割遗产的法律，不能被解释成继承人为阻止立遗嘱人撤销遗嘱，可以通过杀害立遗嘱人的方式来获得遗嘱利益。

——格雷和丹佛斯法官，有不同意见。

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. M.Hawkins for respondents.

莱斯里 ·W·茹塞尔为上诉人辩护；W·M·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 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 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 survived 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 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, 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，他的天赋超过两个女儿，被告埃尔默·帕尔默由其母亲苏珊·帕尔默抚养。但如果被告埃尔默·帕尔默比祖父富朗西斯·帕尔默活得长，而在未成年时死去且未结婚，又不存在其它争议的话，则遗产归帕尔默夫人所有。富朗西斯·帕尔默在立遗嘱时，拥有一座农场和一笔可观的个人财产，他曾是一个鳏夫，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，我们需要明确的唯一问题是——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 probate; 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 controlled 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 must 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 present 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 it 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 from probable or rational conjectures only, and this is called \interpretation\and Rutherford, in his Institutes, (page 420) says: \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 meaning so as to take in more, than his words express.\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 statutes by an equitable construction; and it is said in Bacon: \an equitable construction a case not within the letter of a statute is sometimes holden to be within the meaning, because it is within the mischief for which a remedy is provided. The reason for such

百度搜索“77cn”或“免费范文网”即可找到本站免费阅读全部范文。收藏本站方便下次阅读，免费范文网，提供经典小说综合文库里格斯诉帕尔默案判决书在线全文阅读。