第二组：杨彩萍 滕玉 王俊杰 耿天任
RIGGS V. PALMER(节选)
里格斯诉帕尔默案
RIGGS V. PALMER Court of Appeals of New York, 1889
里格斯诉帕尔默案，纽约上诉法院，1889年。
Rights of Legatees-Murder of Testator
有关继承人杀害立遗嘱人有无继承权的问题。
The law of New York relating to the probate of wills and the distributions of estates will not be construed so as to secure the benefit of a will to a legatee who has killed the testator in order to prevent a revocation of the will. GRAY and DANFORTH, JJ., dissenting.
纽约州关于遗嘱检验和分割遗产的法律，不能被解释成遗产受赠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。
Appeal from supreme court, general term, third department.
上诉来自纽约州最高法院，普通审期，第三法庭。
Leslie W Russell, for appellants. W. M.Hawkins for respondents.
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. on the 13th day of August 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament, in which he gave small legacies to his two daughters, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston, the plaintiffs in this action, and the remainder of his estate to his grandson, the defendant Elmer E. Palmer, subject to the support of Susan Palmer, his mother, with a gift over to the two daughters, subject to the support of Mrs. Palmer in case Elmer should survive him and die under age, unmarried, and without any issue.
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，即该案的原审原告，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——即该案的原审被告埃尔默·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。
The testator, at the date of his will, owned a farm, and considerable personal property. He was a widower, and thereafter, in March, 1882, he was married to Mrs. Bresee, with whom, before his marriage, he entered into an antenuptial contract, in which it was agreed that in lieu of dower and all other claims upon his estate in case she survived him she should have her support upon his farm during her life, and such support was expressly charged upon the farm.
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，约定此份协议具有优先效力，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。
At the date of the will, and subsequently to the death of the testator, Elmer lived with him as a member of his family, and at his death was 16 years old. He knew of the provisions made in his favor in the will, and, that he might prevent his grandfather from revoking such provisions, which he had manifested some intention to do, and to obtain the speedy enjoyment and immediate possession of his property, he willfully murdered him by poisoning him. He now claims the property, and the sole question for our determination is, can he have it?
原审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。原审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，埃尔默故意毒死了祖父。现原审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？
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 according 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 expressed; and in considering and giving effect to them this purpose must be kept in view.
被上诉人辩称，立遗嘱人所立遗嘱形式合法且经过遗嘱检验，现立遗嘱人已经去世，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，如果事态按其自然进程发展，不被控制也没有改变，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立遗嘱人能够处置其去世时依各州规定可继承的遗产，也是为了让立遗嘱人最后合法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。
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.
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立遗嘱人，从中获取遗嘱利益，这决不会是立法者的目的。立法者如果能想到这种情况，并认为有必要制定相应的法律规定，那么立法者会毫不犹豫地作出规定。一般说来，立法者的目的就是法律条文字面所表达出的目的；但除非把立法者的目的严格限定于法律条文之内，法律条文所能表达出的目的不限于法律条文本身，这是人们所熟知的一个解释原则。
