里格斯诉帕尔默案判决书

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， 需要我们明确的问题是——他能获得遗产吗？

The defendants say that the testator is dead; that his will was made

in due form, and has been admitted to probate; and that therefore it must

have effect acording to the letter of the law. It is quite true that statutes

regulating the making, proof, and effect of wills and the devolution of

property, if literally construed, and if their force and effect can in no way

and under no circumstances be controlled or modified, give this property

to the murderer. The purpose of those statutes was to enable testators to

dispose of their estates to the objects of their county at death, and to carry

into effect their final wishes legally ex pressed; and in considering and

giving effect to them this purpose must be kept in view. It was the

intention of the law-makers that the donees in a will should have the

property given to them. But it never could have been their intention that a

donee who murdered the testator to make the will operative should have

any benefit under it. If such a case had been present to their minds, and it

had been supposed necessary to make some provision of law to meet it, it

cannot be doubted that they would have provided for it. It is a familiar

canon of construction that a thing which is within the intention of the

makers of a statute is as much within the statute as if it were within the

letter; and a thing which is within the letter of the statute is not within the

statute unless it be within the intention of the makers. The writers of laws

do not always express their intention perfectly, but either exceed it or fall

short of it, so that judges are to collect it from probable or rational

conjectures only, and this is called

Rutherford, in his Institutes, (page 420) says:

rational interpretation, sometimes we restrain the meaning of the writer so

as to take in less, and some times we extend or enlarge his meaning so as

to take in more, than his words express.

put upon a statute as will best answer the intention which the makers had

in view.... Many cases are mentioned where it was held that matters

embraced in the general words of statutes nevertheless were not within

the statutes, because it could not have been the intention of the

law-makers that they should be included. They were taken out of the

statutes by an equitable construction; and it is said in Bacon:

equitable construction a case not within the letter of a statute is

sometimes holden to be within the meaning, because it is within the

mischief for which a remedy is provided. The reason for such

construction is that the law-makers could not set down every case in

express terms. In order to form a right judgment whether a case be within

the equity of a statute, it is a good way to suppose the law-maker present,

and that you have asked him this question: Did you intend to comprehend

this case? Then you must give yourself such answer as you imagine he,

being an upright and reasonable man, would have given. If this be that he

did mean to comprehend it, you may safely hold the case to be within the

equity of the statute; for while you do no more than he would have done,

you do not act contrary to the statute, hut in conformity thereto.

Abr. 248. In some cases the letter of a legislative act is restrained by an

equitable construction; in others, it is enlarged; in others, the construction

is contrary to the letter.... If the law makers could, as to this case, be

consulted, would they say that they intended by their general language

that the property of a testator or of an ancestor should pass to one who

had taken his life for the express purpose of getting his property? In 1 Bl

Comm. 91, the learned author, speaking of the construction of statutes,

says: ' If there arise out of them collaterally any absurd consequences

manifestly contradictory to common reason, they are with regard to those

collateral consequences void. Where some collateral matter arises out of

the general words, and happens to be unreasonable, there the judges are in

decency to conclude that this consequence was not foreseen by the

parliament, and therefore they are at liberty to ex pound the statute by

equity, and only quoad hoc disregard it;

an act of parliament gives a man power to try all causes that arise within

his manor of Dale, yet, if a cause should arise in which he himself is party,

the act is construed not to extend to that, because it is unreasonable that

any man should determine his own quarrel. There was a statute in

Bologna that whoever drew blood in the streets should be severely

punished, and yet it was held not to apply to the case of a barber who

opened a vein in the street. It is commanded in the decalogue that no

work shall be done upon the Sabbath, and yet giving the command a

rational interpretation founded upon its design the Infallible Judge held

that it did not prohibit works of necessity, charity, or benevolence on that

day.

被上诉人辩称，

遗嘱人所立 遗嘱形式合法且经过公证，

现遗嘱人

已经去世，根据法律规定遗 嘱应当得到执行。依据文义解释，在没有

外力影响和左右的情况下，

事态按其自然进程发展，

不被控制也没有

改变的话，那么根 据调整遗嘱订立、证明、效力以及财产转移等遗嘱

法的规定，把遗产转给谋杀者，这是千 真万确的。制定遗嘱法就是为

了让遗嘱人，

能够处置其去世时依 各州规定可继承的遗产，

也是为了

让遗嘱人最后合法律表达出的 意愿产生实际效果，

在考虑和判定遗嘱

效力时，

这些立法目的必须被考量。

立法者的目的就是让遗嘱受赠人

获得其应该继承的遗产。

但受赠人为使遗嘱生效而谋杀遗嘱人，

从中

获取遗嘱利益，

这决不会是立法者的目的。