case Higgens versus Dowler a demise land for a long term in trust for herself  for life then to b for life remainder to the wife of b for life then to the  first son for the remainder of the term and in default of issue of such son to  the second and other son of b and for want of issue male to the daughter of b  for the remainder of the term there have never be a son the limitation to the  daughter be hold good Alice Higgens possess of a term for year demise to I S  for year in trust for herself for life then to Henry Higgens her son for life  remainder to mary his wife for life then to the first son during the residue  of the term and in default of issue of such first son to the second and other  son of Henry and mary and in default of issue male to the daughter and  daughter of Henry and mary equal to be divide between they during the residue  of the term and in default of issue of Henry and mary to Henry during the  residue of the term Vernon chancery case upon a demurrer the Lord chancellor  be of opinion that in regard there never be any son but only a daughter the  limitation to the daughter be good in case of a express devise to the first  son during the residue of the term remainder to the daughter if no son the  remainder to the daughter will take place and where devise to the first son in  tail that give he the whole term only by construction in law and a estate by  construction of law can be great or of more force to make void the remainder  than a express limitation of the residue of the term There be mere a entry of  a demurrer overrule Reg lib a fol send vide p wms S c and Mr Cox note there  and see the case itself full state from the record by sir Joseph Jekyl in his  argument in Stanley v leigh p wms et seq Woodford v thellusson Ves and decree  affirm in dom proc that June Ves as to the authority of the principal case  vide with v Blackman ves where Hardwicke Lord chancellor be report to say  Higgens v Dowler have be odd and different report nor do I know what to make  of it but Lord Hardwicke have probable not see the statement of it by sir  Joseph Jekyl above refer to so in the case of Clare v Clare Forr the principal  case be not treat with much respect but probable for the same reason for  Talbot Lord chancellor say Higgens v Dowler be very imperfect report and be  upon a demurrer and as to Stanley v leigh it have not be particular mention so  that what we have of it be only upon memory and so decide on similar  circumstance contrary to the principal case yet in Sheffield v Lord orrery atk  three year before the case of with v Blackman the principal case be cite by  Lord Hardwicke with other case in support of his judgement and the reason and  ground of the judgement in the principal case be state by sir Joseph Jekyl in  his abovementioned argument from the manuscript report which say Lord  chancellor Cowper take it with great clearness that where the limitation be  vest in the son the remainder to the daughter be void but if there never be a  son such a limitation be good et vide S c rather different state salk and  remark of sir Joseph Jekyl thereon in Stanley v leigh ub sup and the authority  of Clare v Clare seem to have be considerable shake and the principle of the  case of Higgens v Dowler establish in Sheffield v Lord orrery atk do v  fonnereau Doug Gower v Grosvenor Barnard Maddox v Stains p wms Stephens v  Stephens foxy Sabbarton v Sabbarton ibidem Woodford v thellusson ub sup Vernon  chancery case er p