里格斯诉帕尔默案判决书(2)

construction is that the law-makers could not set down every case in express terms. In order to form a right judgment whether a case be within the equity of a statute, it is a good way to suppose the law-maker present, and that you have asked him this question: Did you intend to comprehend this case? Then you must give yourself such answer as you imagine he, being an upright and reasonable man, would have given. If this be that he did mean to comprehend it, you may safely hold the case to be within the equity of the statute; for while you do no more than he would have done, you do not act contrary to the statute, hut in conformity thereto.\Abr. 248. In some cases the letter of a legislative act is restrained by an equitable construction; in others, it is enlarged; in others, the construction is contrary to the letter.... If the law makers could, as to this case, be consulted, would they say that they intended by their general language that the property of a testator or of an ancestor should pass to one who had taken his life for the express purpose of getting his property? In 1 Bl Comm. 91, the learned author, speaking of the construction of statutes, says: ' If there arise out of them collaterally any absurd consequences manifestly contradictory to common reason, they are with regard to those collateral consequences void. Where some collateral matter arises out of the general words, and happens to be unreasonable, there the judges are in decency to conclude that this consequence was not foreseen by the parliament, and therefore they are at liberty to ex pound the statute by

equity, and only quoad hoc disregard it;\an act of parliament gives a man power to try all causes that arise within his manor of Dale, yet, if a cause should arise in which he himself is party, the act is construed not to extend to that, because it is unreasonable that any man should determine his own quarrel. There was a statute in Bologna that whoever drew blood in the streets should be severely punished, and yet it was held not to apply to the case of a barber who opened a vein in the street. It is commanded in the decalogue that no work shall be done upon the Sabbath, and yet giving the command a rational interpretation founded upon its design the Infallible Judge held that it did not prohibit works of necessity, charity, or benevolence on that day.

被上诉人辩称，立遗嘱人所立遗嘱形式合法且经过遗嘱检验，现立遗嘱人已经去世，根据法律规定遗嘱应当得到执行。依据文义解释，在没有外力影响和左右的情况下，如果事态按其自然进程发展，不被控制也没有改变，那么，根据调整遗嘱订立、证明、效力以及财产转移等遗嘱法的规定，把遗产转给谋杀者，这是千真万确的。制定遗嘱法就是为了让立遗嘱人能够处置其去世时依各州规定可继承的遗产，也是为了让立遗嘱人最后合法表达出的意愿产生实际效果，在考虑和判定遗嘱效力时，这些立法目的必须被考量。立法者的目的就是让遗嘱受赠人获得其应该继承的遗产。但受赠人为使遗嘱生效而谋杀立遗嘱

人，从中获取遗嘱利益，这决不会是立法者的目的。立法者如果能想到这种情况，并认为有必要制定相应的法律规定，那么立法者会毫不犹豫地作出规定。一般说来，立法者的目的就是法律条文字面所表达出的目的；但除非把立法者的目的严格限定于法律条文之内，法律条文所能表达出的目的不限于法律条文本身，这是人们所熟知的一个解释原则。立法者并不总能精确地表达他们的目的，而是有时会超出，有时又受到限制，为此，就需要法官从可能或合理的推断中修正立法者的目的，这被称为“合理性解释”。卢瑟福在其法学著作中曾说（420页），“当我们运用合理性解释时，我们有时会为限制作者的意义表达而对文本作限制解释，有时会为扩展或增加作者的意义表达而对文本作扩张解释。”所以，对制定法的解释应致力于有根据地探寻立法者的目的??很多这样的案例被提及，即虽然事项被包括在法律字面的通常意义之内，但由于不可能是立法者的目的，从而被衡平解释拒之制定法之外。正如培根所言，“通过衡平解释，一个不包括在制定法字面含义之内的情形有时可能被认定包括在制定法之内，比如为损害提供救济就在制定法之内。这种解释的根据在于，立法者不可能用明确的语言为每个案件立法。为了正确判定当下案件是否在制定法规定之内，你可以假定立法者在场，并向他提出如下问题：你打算怎样理解这一案件？然后站在正直的、理性人的角度给出你自己的答案，这是一个好的方法。如果你感到立法者会包括在内，你就可以确信该案包括在制定法之内，因为你所作的也就是立法者所作的，你没有违反制定法，而是遵循了制定法。根据衡平解释，制定法的字面含义在某

些案件中会受到限制；在另外一些案件中可能会扩张，甚至作出相反地解释??就该案而言，如果咨询立法者，根据语言的通常意义，他们会说立遗嘱人或被继承人的财产应该转移给为获得遗产而杀害立遗嘱人或被继承人的人的手中吗？布莱克斯通在讲到制定法解释时说，“如果制定法解释产生了与普通理性相悖的荒谬结论，我们必须考虑这些结论的无效性。如果有些结论溢出语言的通常意义，且是不合理的，那么，法官可以合情理地得出该结论不是议会所预见的，因此，法官享有事后衡平解释制定法的自由，甚至就此而言，法官可以无视制定法”。布莱克斯通举例作了说明：如果议会法案授予法官可以审理发生在其管辖范围内的所有案件，但其中一个案件法官就是案件一方当事人的话，那么法官就不能对法案作扩张解释，因为任何人都不能作自己案件的法官。还有波罗格纳有一部法案，任何人在大街上流血都将受到严惩，但法案不适用于理发师在大街上割破血管。《圣经》十戒规定安息日不能工作，但万能的法官给出了合理的解释，坚持认为这一天，那些必需的、乐善好施的工作不在禁止之列。

What could be more unreasonable than to suppose that it was the legislative intention in the general laws passed for the orderly peaceable, and just devolution of property that they should have operation in favor of one Who murdered his ancestor that he might speedily come into the possession of his estate? Such an intention is inconceivable. We need not, therefore, be much troubled by the general language contained in the laws.

Besides, all laws, as well as all contracts, may be controlled in their operation and effect by general fundamental maxims of the common law. No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime. These maxims are dictated by public policy, have their foundation in universal law administered in all civilized countries, and have nowhere been superseded by statutes. They were applied in the decision of the case of Insurance Co. v. Armstrong, 117 U. S. 599, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 877. There it was held that the person who procured a policy upon the life of another, payable at his death, and then murdered the assured to make the policy payable, could not recover thereon. Mr. Justice FIELD, writing the opinion, said: \any proof of the motives of Hunter in obtaining the policy, and even assuming that they were just and proper, he forfeited all rights under it when, to secure its immediate payment, he murdered the assured. It would be a reproach to the jurisprudence of the country if one could recover insurance money payable on the death of a party whose life he had feloniously taken. As well might he recover insurance money upon a building that he had willfully fired.\giving them force or operation, frequently control the effect and nullify the language of wills. A will procured by fraud and deception, like any other instrument, may he de creed void, and set aside; and so a particular

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(2)在线全文阅读。