里格斯诉帕尔默案判决书(3)

portion of a will may be excluded from probate, or held in operative, if induced by the fraud or undue influence of the person in whose favor it is.... So a will may contain provisions which are immoral, irreligious, or against public policy, and they will be held void.

立法者为和平、秩序和公正地转移财产而制定的普遍法律，如果产生赞同或支持人们为快速占有遗产而杀害被继承人的结果，并将其视为立法者目的，没有比这更为不合理的了，这样的立法目的是不可思议的。因此，我们不能被法律中的一般性语言所困扰。另外，所有法律和合同在其执行和效果上都受普通法所确立的普遍基本原则的规制。诸如任何人都不能通过欺诈行为而获利，不得通过自己的错误行为而获利，不得依据自己的不义行为主张权利，更不得通过犯罪行为而获得财产等，这些原则由公共政策所支配，在所有文明国家普遍性的法律中都有其基础，即使是制定法也不能超越它们。在“保险公司诉阿姆斯特朗案”中这些原则得到体现。该案中投保人为他人（被保险人）订立了一份死亡保险合同，约定在被保险人死亡时投保人为保险金受益人，投保人为获得保险金而谋杀了被保险人，则投保人不能获得保险金。菲尔德大法官在其撰写的法律意见中说，“无需探寻和证明亨特在订立保险合同时的动机，即使假定其动机是正当和恰当的，但当他为立即获取保险金而谋杀被保险人时，他就丧失了保险合同下的所有权利。如果投保人能够通过杀害被保险人的犯罪行为而获得保险金的话，那么他同样能够通过蓄意烧毁一幢建筑而获得保险金，这将是

一个国家法学的耻辱。”这些原则无需制定法赋予其效力或执行力，却能常常规制遗嘱的有效与无效。通过欺诈、欺骗订立的遗嘱，同其他法律文书一样，可以被宣告无效或撤销。如果欺诈或不正当地对遗嘱人施加影响，那么遗嘱的某些内容可能被排除在认证之外或仅是部分地得到执行??所以，遗嘱可能包含不道德、违反宗教或公共政策的内容，这些内容将被判决无效。

Here there was no certainty that this murderer would survive the testator, or that the testator would not change his will, and there was no certainty that he would get this property if nature was allowed to take its course. He therefore murdered the testator expressly to vest himself with an estate. Under such circumstances what law, human or divine, will allow him to take the estate and enjoy the fruits of his crime? The will spoke and became operative at the death of the testator. He caused that death, and thus by his crime made it speak and have operation. Shall it speak and operate in his favor? If he had met the testator, and taken his property by force, he would have had no title to it. Shall he acquire title by murdering him? If he had gone to the testator's house, and by force compelled him, or by fraud or undue influence had induced him, to will him his property, the law would not allow him to hold it. But can he give effect and operation to a will by murder, and yet take the property? To answer these questions in the affirmative it seems to me would be a

reproach to the jurisprudence of our state, and an offense against public policy. Under the civil law, evolved from the general principles of natural law and justice by many generations of juris consults, philosophers, and statesmen, one cannot take property by inheritance or will from an ancestor or benefactor whom he has murdered.... In the Civil Code of Lower Canada the provisions on the subject in the Code Napoleon have been substantially copied. But, so far as I can find, in no country where the common law prevails has it been deemed important to enact a law to provide for such a case. Our revisers and law-makers were familiar with the civil law, and they did not deem it important to incorporate into our statutes its provisions upon this subject. This is not a casus omissus. It was evidently supposed that the maxims of the common law were sufficient to regulate such a case, and that a specific enactment for that purpose was not needed. For the same reasons the defendant Palmer cannot take any of this property as heir. Just before the murder he was not an heir, and it was not certain that he ever would be. He might have died before his grandfather, or might have been disinherited by him. He made himself an heir by the murder, and he seeks to take property as the fruit of his crime. What has before been said to him as legatee applies to him with equal force as an heir. He cannot vest himself with title by crime. My view of this case does not inflict upon Elmer any greater or other punishment for his crime than the law specifies. It takes from him no

property, but simply holds that he shall not acquire property by his crime, and thus be rewarded for its commission.

不能确定谋杀者活得比立遗嘱人长，也不能确定立遗嘱人不改变遗嘱，同样不能确定，即使事态按照其自然进程发展，谋杀者一定会获得遗产。而谋杀者谋杀立遗嘱人，显然是为了获得遗产，在这种情形下，会有法律、人或神灵允许谋杀者获得遗产，享受其犯罪成果吗？遗嘱在立遗嘱人死亡时宣读并生效。谋杀者导致了立遗嘱人死亡，谋杀者因其犯罪行为而使遗嘱被宣读并生效，遗嘱能够如其所愿地被宣读和生效吗？如果谋杀者与立遗嘱人相见并用暴力夺取其财产，则谋杀者没有权利获得该财产，那么，他能通过谋杀行为来获得该权利吗？如果他闯入遗嘱人住宅，并以暴力胁迫立遗嘱人，或者通过欺诈、不正当影响诱导立遗嘱人，法律也不会认可、支持他。法律怎么会支持谋杀者通过谋杀行为而使遗嘱生效并获得遗产呢？在我看来，对这些问题给出肯定的回答将是我国法学的耻辱，也违背公共政策。由许多法学家、哲学家和政治家所阐述的正义与自然法的一般原则发展而来的民法认为，一个人不能因其谋杀行为而从被继承人或立遗嘱人那里获得遗产，加拿大下议院制定的民法典就照搬了拿破仑法典的该项规定。但据我所知，没有一个普通法居于支配地位的国家认为制定法对此作出规定是重要的。立法者和修改者对民法是熟悉的，他们也不认为把该事项写进制定法是重要的，这并不是偶然的疏忽，而是因为人们认为普通法的法律原则足以调整这类案件，没有必要对此作出规

定。同理，被告帕尔默不能作为继承人获得遗产，在谋杀之前，他不是继承人，他能否成为继承人也是不确定的。他可能死于祖父之前，也可能被祖父剥夺继承权。他通过谋杀使自己成为继承人，并想通过占有犯罪成果而获得遗产。前面提到的对继承人有效的法律原则同样适用于受赠人，他不能通过犯罪行为而获得遗产。在我看来，这样判决没有给埃尔默的犯罪行为施加比法律规定更多的或额外的惩罚，判决没有剥夺他的任何财产，而只是判定他不能通过犯罪行为而获得财产，这是他因其犯罪行为应得的报应。

Our attention is called to Owens v. Owens, 100 N. C. 240, 6 S. E. Rep. 794, as a case quite like this. There a wife had been convicted of being an accessory before the fact to the murder of her husband, and it was held that she was nevertheless entitled to dower. I am unwilling to assent to the doctrine of that case. The statutes provide dower for a wife who has the misfortune to survive her husband, and thus lose his support and protection. It is clear beyond their purpose to make provision for a wife who by her own crime makes herself a widow, and willfully and intentionally deprives herself of the support and protection of her husband. As she might have died before him, and thus never have been his widow, she cannot by her crime vest herself with an estate. The principle which lies at the bottom of the maxim volenti non fit injuria should be applied to such a case, and a widow should not, for the purpose of acquiring, as 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(3)在线全文阅读。