Riggs v. Palmer is a landmark case in American jurisprudence that was decided in 1889 by the New York Court of Appeals. The case involved a dispute over the distribution of the estate of Francis B. Palmer, who had been murdered by his grandson, William A. Palmer, in an effort to inherit his grandfather's wealth.

The central legal issue in the case was whether William A. Palmer could inherit his grandfather's estate, given that he had killed him. The court ultimately held that William A. Palmer was not entitled to inherit the estate under the law, as he had forfeited his right to any benefits from the will by his unlawful and morally reprehensible conduct.

The decision in Riggs v. Palmer is significant for several reasons. It established the legal principle that a person who unlawfully kills another individual cannot inherit that person's property. It also recognized the importance of the moral principles underlying the law, and the need to ensure that the law upholds justice and fairness in society. The case has since become a cornerstone of American jurisprudence and has been cited in countless other cases dealing with issues of inheritance and property law.

Facts
On August 13, 1880, Francis Palmer created a will dividing his estate among his daughters, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston (plaintiffs), and his grandson, Elmer Palmer (defendant). Elmer knew the terms of the will. In 1882, Elmer murdered his grandfather by poisoning him. Elmer was convicted of murder and began serving his sentence.

The plaintiffs brought suit to annul the parts of the will under which Elmer inherited, alleging that Elmer's crime rendered his inheritance void. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs appealed.

Procedural History
In 1885, Francis B. Palmer, a wealthy man from New York, executed a will that left his entire estate to his granddaughter, Elsie Palmer. However, in 1886, Palmer was killed by his grandson, William Riggs, who was motivated by a desire to inherit the estate himself. William Riggs was subsequently indicted for murder, and his trial began in 1887. During the trial, it was revealed that Palmer had recently executed a new will that disinherited William and left his estate to Elsie.

The prosecution argued that William had killed his grandfather to prevent the new will from taking effect. The trial ended in a hung jury, and a mistrial was declared. Before William could be retried, however, Elsie and her mother, who was also a beneficiary under the new will, filed a civil suit to have the will admitted to probate. The case went before the Surrogate's Court in Monroe County, where the will was admitted to probate in November 1887.

William then appealed to the Supreme Court of New York, which affirmed the decision of the lower court in January 1888. William then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which heard the case in January 1889. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower courts and held that the new will was invalid because it was contrary to public policy to allow a murderer to profit from his crime.

Issues:

1. Whether a person who murders a relative can inherit from the victim's estate under a will.
2. Whether the principle of testamentary freedom, which allows a person to dispose of their property as they see fit through a will, can be limited by public policy considerations.
3. Whether the new will executed by Francis B. Palmer, which disinherited his grandson William Riggs and left his estate to his granddaughter Elsie Palmer, was valid and enforceable despite the fact that William had killed his grandfather to prevent it from taking effect.
4. Whether the lower court and appellate court were correct in admitting the new will to probate and affirming its validity.

Party's Argument

1. Petitioner
   the petitioner argued that Elmer Palmer, who was accused of murdering his grandfather, should not be entitled to his inheritance. The petitioner argued that the law should prevent Elmer from profiting from his crime, as it would go against the principles of justice and morality. Specifically, the petitioner argued that the law should apply the doctrine of "no one should be allowed to profit from his own wrong" or "clean hands" principle to the case.
   
   The petitioner argued that Elmer's actions in murdering his grandfather were immoral and against the public policy, and therefore he should not be allowed to receive his inheritance. The petitioner also argued that the grandfather's will did not intend for Elmer to inherit anything if he was involved in the death of his grandfather.
   
   The petitioner claimed that the grandfather's will included an implied condition that Elmer must not be involved in his death in order to inherit his property. Overall, the petitioner's main argument was that Elmer should not be allowed to inherit his grandfather's property as a result of his wrongful conduct, and that the law should prevent such an unjust outcome.
    
2. Defendant
   The defense argued that Elmer Palmer should still be entitled to his inheritance, despite being accused of murdering his grandfather. The main argument was that the will of the grandfather, which included Elmer as a beneficiary, was a legally binding document that could not be altered or overridden by the court.
   
   They argued that the will was clear in its intentions, and that there was no mention of disinheriting Elmer in the event of his involvement in the grandfather's death. Furthermore, the defense argued that the court should not interfere with the clear language of the will, and that it was not the place of the court to rewrite the will to suit the petitioner's notion of morality.
   
   The defense also claimed that the doctrine of "clean hands" was not applicable to this case, as it was a criminal law principle and not a principle of equity, which is the branch of law that governs wills and trusts. In essence, the defense's position was that the will was a legally valid document that should be respected by the court, and that the petitioner's arguments about morality and justice were irrelevant to the case. The defense argued that the law should be applied strictly and that Elmer should receive the inheritance that he was entitled to under the will.

Case Analysis
The significance of morality in legal judgments should not be disregarded, for it furnishes a fundamental structure of values that directs the law towards rendering impartial and equitable decisions. The involvement of morality in legal judgments guarantees that the law does not turn arbitrary and maintains its basis in righteousness and rectitude.

This is a vital aspect of legal judgments since it establishes a groundwork for ethical decision-making. The law is contrived to shield the privileges of individuals and guarantee that justice is dispensed. Nevertheless, the absence of a moral guide can readily distort the law, producing unfair outcomes. For instance, a law that criminalizes a specific conduct might be grounded on moral principles that prohibit that conduct. The moral principles underpinning the law safeguard its impartiality and equitability, while serving a larger societal intent

In addition, morality provides a basis for resolving conflicts in the legal system. Legal judgments often involve conflicting interests and values. For example, a legal case may involve the conflict between an individual's right to privacy and the government's need for surveillance in the interest of national security. In such cases, morality provides a framework for resolving conflicts by guiding judges to consider the greater good and weigh the competing interests at stake.

Upon revisiting the subject matter, one can perceive that the Majority ruling delivered by the court in the landmark case of Riggs v. Palmer stems from the philosophical framework of Natural Law Theory, as the verdict deemed the legislation in question as an "Unjust Law" and ultimately sided with the underlying Morality and Purpose of said legislation.

The Natural Law theory posits that there is an essential link between Morality and Law, such that adherence to morality constitutes the creation of Legality of the rule. It holds that any law that contravenes natural law or Morality is deemed "Unjust Law".

In the Riggs v. Palmer case, although the legal provisions governing the will were unambiguous, there existed no necessary correlation between the law and morality, as it allowed the perpetrator of a heinous crime to profit from his act. Consequently, the Majority decision relied on the "fundamental maxims" of the law or morality of the law.

The decision's central thesis is that if the law were rigidly followed, it would contravene the law's purpose. Therefore, a "Rational Interpretation" was necessary since the law maker would not have intended such an outcome, and the court ruled against the murderer.

On the other hand, Positivist interpretation of the dissenting judge is consistent with his argument though the case. His argument of "rigid rules of Law" is consistent with the separation thesis which argues for distinction between legality and morality. Though the dissenting judge has some validity to his argument, majority decision is consistent with the reality of the society. Separation of Judicial system and process is important in our society.

Yet, important decisions such as this case, should not be so disconnected with the reality of social norm. Strict interpretation laws are needed in most cases in our society, yet when laws conflict with basic fundamental moral norms such as in this case, the courts need to be flexible as court and Judicial system do not exist in a vacuum but in a society that has given validity to its process and decisions.

One of the more interesting points was when the Majority judges ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, in supporting their decision they also raised and answered two key questions that proved to be the most convincing:
If one seeks advise from the writers of the statutes, would they say that they intended for a testator to endow his personal property to his murderer if the sole purpose of the murder was the passing of property if Mr. Francis B. Palmer, instead, has survived an attempted murder, would he still grant Elmer E. Palmer rights to his bequest

The purpose of the statutes authorizing the effect of wills is to honour the final wishes of a man upon his death, and legally transfer his property according to these wishes. The law-makers would never have intended to provide reason for a crime to be committed, or for the life of the testator to be taken by the legatee, for immediate transfer of his legacy.

That being said, I rightly believe the original judgement was definitely the right decision to take. The Majority judges pointed to legal maxims throughout the writing of their opinion; one of the most compelling one being "Qui Haeret In Litera, Haeret In Cortice", meaning "he who clings to the letter, clings to the rind" (Ballentine's Law Dictionary), that is, in limiting one's self to the confines of the rigid letters of the law, and taking them to only mean as they are exactly written, one may be depriving one's self of fulfilling the true purpose of the law.

According to Ronald Dworkin's works on the interpretivist theory of law, "A judge is obligated to interpret the law according to its purpose and to exemplify justice, fairness and integrity". Safe to say Judge Earl definitely took the role of the aforementioned judge.

The dissenting judge, as a legal positivist, focused on the written rules. To an extent, rules must be unyielding, and judges are obligated to apply them as they are, as long as they portray an element of morality and are not contradictory to common reason. It is an expectation that written laws operate to protect the rights of individuals, but in this contemporary society where they are operated, it is also a reasonable expectation that the legal authority use their power to divest a rightsholder when he has deliberately presented himself unworthy of his rights.

Conclusion
The indispensability of morality as a critical constituent of legal judgments is evidenced in its capacity to provide a bedrock for ethical decision-making, shape legal judgments, guide the legal system, and serve as a basis for conflict resolution. The second issue of this case concerned the allocation of the legacy in the event of the invalidation of the testator's last will and testament.

While the court granted the plaintiffs the entitlement to their rightful inheritance, the basis upon which this verdict was reached was not fully expounded upon. In the pursuit of upholding justice and equity in this matter, did the judges thoroughly deliberate on the underlying motivation of the plaintiffs' appeal?

Was it to seek redress for their father's untimely demise or was it conceivable that the two daughters had harboured the hope that such a scenario would arise to enable them to lay claim to a more substantial portion of their father's bequest than what was originally allocated to them? In the event that the latter is true, the court would have failed to accord Mr. Palmer's death the justice it deserves, thereby misrepresenting his final wishes.