搜索
里格斯诉帕尔默案判决书（中英文对照，初定稿）（赵玉增译李鸻校）RIGGSV.PALMERCourtofAppealsofNewYork,1889里格斯诉帕尔默案，纽约上诉法院，1889年。RightsofLegatees-MurderofTestator有关继承人杀害立遗嘱人有无继承权的问题。ThelawofNewYorkrelatingtotheprobateofwillsandthedistributionsofestateswillnotbeconstruedsoastosecurethebenefitofawilltoalegateewhohaskilledthetestatorinordertopreventarevocationofthewill.GRAYandDANFORTH,JJ.,dissenting.纽约州关于遗嘱检验和分割遗产的法律，不能被解释成继承人为阻止立遗嘱人撤销遗嘱，可以通过杀害立遗嘱人的方式来获得遗嘱利益。——格雷和丹佛斯法官，有不同意见。Appealfromsupremecourt,generalterm,thirddepartment.上诉来自纽约州最高法院，普通审期，第三法庭。LeslieWRussell,forappellants.W.M.Hawkinsforrespondents.莱斯里·W·茹塞尔为上诉人辩护；W·M·豪肯斯为被上诉人辩护。EARL,J.onthe13thdayofAugust1880,FrancisB.Palmermadehislastwillandtestament,inwhichhegavesmalllegaciestohistwodaughters,Mrs.RiggsandMrs.Preston,theplaintiffsinthisaction,andtheremainderofhisestatetohisgrandson,thedefendantElmerE.Palmer,subjecttothesupportofSusanPalmer,hismother,withagiftovertothetwodaughters,subjecttothesupportofMrs.PalmerincaseElmershouldsurvivehimanddieunderage,unmarried,andwithoutanyissue.Thetestator,atthedateofhiswill,ownedafarm,andconsiderablepersonalproperty.Hewasawidower,andthereafter,inMarch,1882,hewasmarriedtoMrs.Bresee,withwhom,beforehismarriage,heenteredintoanantenuptialcontract,inwhichitwasagreedthatinlieuofdowerandallotherclaimsuponhisestateincaseshesurvivedhimsheshouldhavehersupportuponhisfarmduringherlife,andsuchsupportwasexpresslychargeduponthefarm.Atthedateofthewill,andsubsequentlytothedeathofthetestator,Elmerlivedwithhimasamemberofhisfamily,andathisdeathwas16yearsold.Heknewoftheprovisionsmadeinhisfavorinthewill,and,thathemightpreventhisgrandfatherfromrevokingsuchprovisions,whichhehadmanifestedsomeintentiontodo,andtoobtainthespeedyenjoymentandimmediatepossessionofhisproperty,hewillfullymurderedhimbypoisoninghim.Henowclaimstheproperty,andthesolequestionforourdeterminationis,canhehaveit?厄尔法官：1880年8月13日，富朗西斯·帕尔默立下一份遗嘱，遗嘱约定他的两个女儿——里格斯和普瑞斯顿，即该案的原告，只能继承其遗产中很少的一部分；剩余大部分遗产由其孙子——即该案的被告埃尔默·帕尔默继承，他的天赋超过两个女儿，被告埃尔默·帕尔默由其母亲苏珊·帕尔默抚养。但如果被告埃尔默·帕尔默比祖父富朗西斯·帕尔默活得长，而在未成年时死去且未结婚，又不存在其它争议的话，则遗产归帕尔默夫人所有。富朗西斯·帕尔默在立遗嘱时，拥有一座农场和一笔可观的个人财产，他曾是一个鳏夫，在1882年3月与伯瑞斯夫人结婚，婚前签署了一份协议，约定一旦伯瑞斯夫人后于富朗西斯·帕尔默去世，则由伯瑞斯夫人照管农场、管理财产直至去世。被告埃尔默自订立遗嘱时起，一直作为家庭中的一员与富朗西斯·帕尔默一家生活在一起，直至其去世，时年埃尔默16岁。被告埃尔默知道遗嘱的内容，推测祖父有可能改变遗嘱，且有迹象表明祖父也试图改变遗嘱，为了阻止祖父改变遗嘱，尽快获得遗产，埃尔默毒死了祖父。现被告埃尔默主张获得遗产，我们需要明确的唯一问题是——他能获得遗产吗？Thedefendantssaythatthetestatorisdead;thathiswillwasmadeindueform,andhasbeenadmittedtoprobate;andthatthereforeitmusthaveeffectacordingtotheletterofthelaw.Itisquitetruethatstatutesregulatingthemaking,proof,andeffectofwillsandthedevolutionofproperty,ifliterallyconstrued,andiftheirforceandeffectcaninnowayandundernocircumstancesbecontrolledormodified,givethispropertytothemurderer.Thepurposeofthosestatuteswastoenabletestatorstodisposeoftheirestatestotheobjectsoftheircountyatdeath,andtocarryintoeffecttheirfinalwisheslegallyexpressed;andinconsideringandgivingeffecttothemthispurposemustbekeptinview.Itwastheintentionofthelaw-makersthatthedoneesinawillshouldhavethepropertygiventothem.Butitnevercouldhavebeentheirintentionthatadoneewhomurderedthetestatortomakethewilloperativeshouldhaveanybenefitunderit.Ifsuchacasehadbeenpresenttotheirminds,andithadbeensupposednecessarytomakesomeprovisionoflawtomeetit,itcannotbedoubtedthattheywouldhaveprovidedforit.Itisafamiliarcanonofconstructionthatathingwhichiswithintheintentionofthemakersofastatuteisasmuchwithinthestatuteasifitwerewithintheletter;andathingwhichiswithintheletterofthestatuteisnotwithinthestatuteunlessitbewithintheintentionofthemakers.Thewritersoflawsdonotalwaysexpresstheirintentionperfectly,buteitherexceeditorfallshortofit,sothatjudgesaretocollectitfromprobableorrationalconjecturesonly,andthisiscalledrationalinterpretation;andRutherford,inhisInstitutes,(page420)says:Wherewemakeuseofrationalinterpretation,sometimeswerestrainthemeaningofthewritersoastotakeinless,andsometimesweextendorenlargehismeaningsoastotakeinmore,thanhiswordsexpress.Suchaconstructionoughttobeputuponastatuteaswillbestanswertheintentionwhichthemakershadinview....Manycasesarementionedwhereitwasheldthatmattersembracedinthegeneralwordsofstatutesneverthelesswerenotwithinthestatutes,becauseitcouldnothavebeentheintentionofthelaw-makersthattheyshouldbeincluded.Theyweretakenoutofthestatutesbyanequitableconstruction;anditissaidinBacon:Byanequitableconstructionacasenotwithintheletterofastatuteissometimesholdentobewithinthemeaning,becauseitiswithinthemischiefforwhicharemedyisprovided.Thereasonforsuchconstructionisthatthelaw-makerscouldnotsetdowneverycaseinexpressterms.Inordertoformarightjudgmentwhetheracasebewithintheequityofastatute,itisagoodwaytosupposethelaw-makerpresent,andthatyouhaveaskedhimthisquestion:Didyouintendtocomprehendthiscase?Thenyoumustgiveyourselfsuchanswerasyouimaginehe,beinganuprightandreasonableman,wouldhavegiven.Ifthisbethathedidmeantocomprehendit,youmaysafelyholdthecasetobewithintheequityofthestatute;forwhileyoudonomorethanhewouldhavedone,youdonotactcontrarytothestatute,hutinconformitythereto.9Bac.Abr.248.Insomecasestheletterofaleg