The Bench · 1889 · The New York Court of Appeals
Riggs v. Palmer (1889): can a murderer inherit from his victim?
Does he inherit?
The case
Told from where the person who decided stood. In the game each line is written into a drawing as you tap.
- Francis Palmer’s will leaves most of what he owns to his grandson, Elmer. The will is signed, witnessed and valid.
- Elmer is sixteen. Afraid the old man will change the will, he poisons him. He is convicted and sent to prison.
- Now Elmer claims his inheritance. The law of wills is clear, and it makes no exception for a murderer.
- Palmer’s daughters ask you to stop him. No statute says you can. You are the court.
The two calls
- He inherits.The law is clear. Prison is his punishment. You have applied the law as it is written.
- He does not.No one may profit from his own crime. You have added a rule the lawmakers never wrote.
Make the call in the game Free. No account. Two minutes.
What happened
He does not inherit. The court held that no one shall profit from his own wrong, though no statute said so.
The judges were divided. The dissent said the will was valid, prison was his punishment, and a court may not add a penalty the lawmakers never wrote.
Law students still argue over which side was right.
Source: Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506, 22 N.E. 188 (Court of Appeals of New York, 1889).
How to read this
History is not an answer key. This page says what was done and what came of it. Whether it was right is the question the case leaves with you.
More from The Bench
- R v Dudley and Stephens (1884): is necessity a defence to murder?
- May a state shoot down a hijacked plane? The German ruling of 2006
- The McDonald’s hot coffee case: what the jury heard
- Nix v. Hedden (1893): is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable?
All the rooms: the case files