里格斯诉帕尔默案判决书(6)

上诉人的诉讼请求，因为在上诉人看来，被上诉人因其犯罪行为不仅非法阻止了现存遗嘱的撤销或新遗嘱的订立，而且终止了立遗嘱人对自己财产的享有，并影响了他自己的继承。上诉人认为，如果允许被上诉人获得遗产，就等于承认被上诉人可以通过违法行为而获利。为支持其主张，上诉人的律师向法院递交了一宗详实而有力的证明材料，我相信如果根据衡平特征的考虑得出本案的判决，我也会毫不犹豫地赞同符合道德良心的观点。但问题是判决不能基于良心而作出。我们必须遵循立法机关所确立的严格的法律规则，对这个问题的裁决必须在法律规定所限定的范围之内。需要我们处理的问题是：在立法机关已经对何时以及如何订立、修改或撤销遗嘱做出明确规定的情况下，在立遗嘱人去世后能否通过诉讼来改变或撤销遗嘱；而且在我看来，显而易见，在严格遵循法律规定的情况下，法院没有根据衡平法理裁判类似案件的自由。现代法学理论认识到个人有处置自己死后遗产的权利，它把这种权利置于立法机关的控制之下，这种权利所及范围和权利行使的方式都或多或少受到限制。正如我们从拿破仑法典的规定，从模仿罗马法建立起来的各国法学理论体系，从很多州制定法中所看到的，个人处置自己遗产的绝对自由既不曾存在又非普遍规律。我们可能自然的设想，确立这些规则的原因在于，其目的是为那些严肃而又重大的行为提供安全保障，这被证明是最为可靠明智之举。依照州法律被准许行使的通过遗嘱行使处置遗产的自由，其行使应遵守州制定法的规定。制定法对通过遗嘱处置遗产有严格而又系统的规定，包括遗嘱的执行、修改和撤销等，即使这些规定不精确，也

必须得到严格遵循。之所以确立这些法律规则，目的就是为那些严肃而又重大的行为提供安全保障，这被证明是可靠明智之举。立遗嘱人在遵守国家制定法规定的情况下，才有处置遗产的自由。个人处置死后遗产的权利和能力以及这种权利行使的方式，是立法机关已经设置了完整的控制的事项，并受到各种特定条件的限制。

The appellants' argument is not helped by reference to those rules of the civil law, or to those laws of other governments, by which the heir, or legatee, is excluded from benefit under the testament if he has been convicted of killing, or attempting to kill, the testator. In the absence of such legislation here, the courts are not empowered to institute such a system of remedial justice. The deprivation of the heir of his testamentary succession by the Roman law, when guilty of such a crime, plainly was intended to be in the nature of a punishment imposed upon him. The succession in such a case of guilt, escheated to the exchequer.... I concede that rules of law which annul testamentary provisions made for the benefit of those who have become unworthy of them may be based on principles of equity and of natural justice. It is quite reasonable to suppose that a testator would revoke or alter his will, where his mind has been so angered and changed as to make him unwilling to have his will executed as it stood. But these principles only suggest sufficient reasons for the enactment of laws to meet such cases.

上诉人主张继承人或受赠人谋杀或试图谋杀立遗嘱人不能得到遗嘱中的财产利益，这得不到我国民事法律的支持，也得不到其他国家法律的支持。在立法缺席的情况下，法院没有权利制定修正正义的规则体系。根据罗马法的规定，如果继承人违法犯罪，自然应当受到处罚，并应当返还遗产给国家??我承认基于公平和自然正义，法律应当宣布遗嘱中有关违法犯罪人获得遗产的条款无效。假定遗嘱人非常气愤，不愿再执行原来的遗嘱，而撤销或修改遗嘱，也是合理的。

The statutes of this state have prescribed various ways in which a will may be altered or revoked; but the very provision defining the modes of alterations and revocation implies a prohibition of alteration or revocation in any other way. The words of the section of the statute are: \writing, except in the cases hereinafter mentioned, nor any part thereof, shall be revoked or altered otherwise,\cases mentioned are met by the facts, and the revocation is not in the way described in the section, the will of the testator is unalterable. I think that a valid will must continue as a will always, unless revoked in the manner provided by the statutes. Mere intention to revoke a will does not have the effect of revocation. The intention to revoke is necessary to constitute the effective revocation of a will, but it must be demonstrated by one of the acts contemplated by the statute. As WOODWORTH, J., said in Dan v.

Brown, 4 Cow. 490; \is an act of the mind, which must be demonstrated by some outward and visible sign of relation.\The same learned judge said in that case: The rule is that if the testator lets the will stand until he dies, it is his will; if he does not suffer it to do so, it is not his will.\would have altered his will had he known of his grandson's murderous intent cannot affect the question. We may concede it to the fullest extent; but still the cardinal objection is undisposed of--that the making and the revocation of a will are purely matters of statutory regulation, by which the court is bound in the determination of questions relating to these acts.

州的制定法规定了修改或撤销遗嘱的各种情形，对修改或撤销遗嘱方式的规定，同时就意味着禁止在其他任何情况下修改或撤销遗嘱。州的制定法是这样规定的：“除了遗嘱已经写明的，任何遗嘱以及遗嘱中的任何部分，都不得被撤销或修改”等。该案认定的案件事实不能满足要求，撤销遗嘱也不符合法律规定，立遗嘱人所立遗嘱不能被该修改。我认为，有效遗嘱必须得到继续执行，除非按制定法规定的撤销该遗嘱。仅仅有撤销遗嘱的意图并不能产生撤销遗嘱的结果，撤销遗嘱由意图变为现实，案件事实必须得到求证，必须依据制定法仔细考量。正如沃兹沃思法官在丹恩诉布朗案判决中所言，“撤销行为必须得到某些外在的、可见的相关佐证的证明。”该案同样博学的法官也说：“规则是如果立遗嘱人生前不改变遗嘱，那就是他的遗嘱；如

果他不愿按遗嘱处理，他会改变遗嘱??”法官假定，如果立遗嘱人知道孙子有谋害他的企图，会改变遗嘱的案件事实，不会对问题不产生任何影响。我们可以最大限度的承认这一点，但客观事实是立遗嘱人没有这样做——重新订立或撤销遗嘱，这才是与制定法规定直接相关的，法院必须根据这些案件事实来裁判案件。

Two cases,--in this state and in Kentucky,--at an early day, seem to me to be much in point. Gains v. Gains, 2 A.K. Marsh 190, was decided by the Kentucky court of appeals in 1820. It was there urged that the testator intended to have destroyed his will, and that he was forcibly prevented from doing so by the defendant in error or devisee; and it was insisted that the will, though not expressly, was thereby virtually, revoked. The court held, as the act concerning wills prescribed that manner in which a will might be revoked, that, as none of the acts evidencing revocation were done, the intention could not be substituted for the act. In that case the will was snatched away, and forcibly retained. In 854, Surrogate BRADFORD, whose opinions are entitled to the highest consideration, decided the case of Leaycraft v. Simmons, 3 Bradf. Sur. 35. In that case the testator, a man of 89 years of age, desired to make a codicil to his will, in order to enlarge the provisions for his daughter. His son, having custody of the instrument, and the one to be prejudiced by the change, refused to produce the will at the testator's request, for the purpose of

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(6)在线全文阅读。