The power of a state to punish crimes is limited to such as are committed within its territory, and consequently it cannot pro vide for the punishment, as crimes, of acts committed beyond the state boundary ; Peo ple v. Merrill, 2 Park. Cr. Rep. (N. Y.) 590; Watson v. State, 36 Miss. 593 ; Cooley, Const. Lim. [128]; but if the ultimate and injurious result of an unlawful act committed outside of a state is effected within it, the perpe trator may be punished by it as an offender ; id.; and it was held constitutional to pun ish in Michigan a homicide committed by a mortal blow in Canada waters from which death resulted in the state ; Tyler v. Peo ple, 8 Mich. 320. See Cooley, Const. Lim. [128]. See 35 U. C. 603. A murder com mitted on a United States battleship lying within territory ceded to the United States by New York, is triable in the United States court for the Southern District Of New York ; U. S. v. Carter, 84 Fed. 622. See Ju arSDICTION.
One who kills his ancestor will neverthe less, take the estate which would come to him under the statutes of descent and dis tribution; Carpenter's Estate, 170 Pa. 203, 32 Atl. 637, 29 L. R. A. 145, 50 Am. St. Rep. 765; Owens v. Owens, 100 N. C. 240, 6 S. E. 794; Shellenberger v. Ransom, 41 Neb. 631, 59 N. W. 935, 25 L. R. A. 564 (reversing 31 Neb. 61, 47 N. W. 700, 10 L. R. A. 810, 28 Am. St. Rep. 500) ; McAllister v. Fair, 72 Kan. 533, 84 Pac. 112, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 726, 115 Am. St. Rep. 233, 7 Ann. Cas. 973 (where it was held that the court could not engraft an exception upon a plain provision of the statute of descent). In Iowa, how ever, there are statutory prohibitions against a murderer's inheriting from his victim ei ther by descent or devise; In re Kuhn's Es tate, 125 Ia. 449, 101 N. W. 151, 2 Ann. Cas. 657 (where however a widow was held en titled to her distributive share as a matter of contract and right even though she killed her husband) ; Gollnik v. Mengel, 112 Minn. 349, 128 N. W. 292; to the same effect [1892] 1 Q. B. 147 (an insurance case in which the insured [Maybrick] was killed by his wife, the beneficiary). It has ueen held that a murderer could not take the property of his ancestor by devise ; Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N. Y. 506, 22 N. E. 188, 5 L. R. A. 340, 12 Am.
St. Rep. 819; 24 Ont. Rep. 132, 24 Can. S. C. 650; or by descent ; Box v. Lanier, 112 Tenn. 393, 79 S. W. 1042, 64 L. R. A. 458; it passes to the estate of the deceased ; Ellerson v. Westcott, 148 N. Y. 149, 42 N. E. 540.
The proceeds of a policy were held to pass to the distributees of the decedent as though the murderer had never been in existence ; Box v. Lanier, 112 Tenn. 393, 79 S. W. 1042, 64 L. R. A. 458. See McAllister v. Fair, 72 Kan. 533, 84 Pac. 112, 3 L. IL A. (N. S.) 726, 115 Am. St. Rep. 233, 7 Ann. Cas. 973.
In cases where the beneficiary in a policy of life insurance causes the death of the insured, it is usually held that the murderer cannot take the fruits of his crime, such a result being, it is said, equivalent to per mitting recovery of insurance money on a building which the beneficiary in the policy had wilfully burned ; Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 117 U. S. 591, 6 Sup. Ct. 877, 29 L. Ed. 997; [1892] 1 Q. B. 147; Schreiner v. Order of Forresters, 35 Ill. App. 576; Schmidt v. Life Ass'n, 112 Ia. 41, 83 N. W. 800, 51 L. R. A. 141, 84 Am. St. Rep. 323; 25 Beay. 605.
But the killing of an insured person by an insane beneficiary does not forfeit his rights under the policy; Holdom v. A. 0. U. W., 159 Ill. 619, 43 N. E. 772, 31 L. R. A. 67, 50 Am. St. Rep. 183 ; nor is there a forfeiture if the killing was accidental ; Schreiner v. Order of Forresters, 35 Ill. App. 576.
Prof. James Barr Ames (Lectures, 310; Am. L. Reg. & Rev. April, 1897) considers that at common law the murderer would take, but that equity should compel the crim inal to surrender the fruits of his crime, and expresses his regret that the cases in Ne braska, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsyl vania did not apply the sound principle of equity that a murderer or other wrongdoer shall not enrich himself by his iniquity at the expense of an innocent person.
In Pleading. In an indictment for mur der, it must be charged that the prisoner "did kill and murder" the deceased; and unless the word murder be introduced into the charge, the indictment will be taken to charge manslaughter only; Bish. Cr. Prac. § 548; Fast Cr. Law 424; Yelv. 205; 1 Chitty, Cr. Law *243, and the authorities and cases there cited.