case Higgins versus dowel on demurrer salk vern limitation of a trust of term  to a man for life remainder to his first c son in tail and for want of issue  male then to all his daughter there never have be a son adjudge the trust to  the daughter good Alice Higgins demise the premise be a term for year to  trustee in trust for herself during her own life and after her death for Henry  Higgins her son after his death for mary Dowler his intend wife and after  their several deceases for the old son of the say Henry Higgins beget on the  body of the say mary Dowler in tail and for default of issue of such first  beget son for all and every the other on and son of the say Henry Higgins  beget on the body of the say mary Dowler and for default of issue male of the  say Henry Higgins beget on the body of the say mary Dowler then in trust for  all and every the daughter there never be a son of the say marriage but there  be a daughter and the husband and wife be both dead it be object by sir Thomas  powis that the limitation of the peer William trust to the daughter be void it  be after limitation in tail to the son which in case of a term be not to be  allow say per Lord chancellor with great clearness there be a diversity where  the limitation in tail ever vest for there it must be admit the remainder over  will be void but as in this case there never be a son the remainder of the  trust of the term to the daughter be good and it be no more than a limitation  of a trust of a term two way sure if there be a son by the marriage then the  limitation be to that son but if there be no son by the marriage but a  daughter then to that daughter and this be not too remote contingency because  confine to a life in be however as I be not for determine this point without  further consideration overrule the demurrer but afterward on the hear his  lordship dismiss the bill may on the authority of this case that of Stanley v  leigh be adjudge by his honour the master of the roll which see post Vol h  notwithstanding that the authority of this case have be in some instance call  in question as in Clare v Clare can tempt Talb with v Blackman ves yet it seem  now full establish b that Stanley v leigh Vol h brook v tailor mos Stephens v  Stephens can tempt Talb Gower v Grosvenor Barnard S c mad Sheffield v Lord  orrery atk Pelham v Gregory bro p c do v fonnereau Doug marsh v marsh bro c c  knight v Ellis bro c c Hockley v mawbey bro c c the result of which case in  the word of Mr Fearne be that whatever number of limitation there may be after  the first executory devise of the whole interest any one of they which be so  limit that it must take effect if at all within year after the period of a  life then in be may be good in event if no one of the precede executory  limitation which will carry the whole interest happen to vest but when once  any precede executory limitation which carry the whole interest happen to take  place that instant all the subsequent limitation become void and the whole  interest be then become vest fearne count Rem vide also the note to do v  fonnereau Doug et seq and see Burnsall v Davy Bos pull Wilkinson v south t r  Phipps v Mulgrave Ves brown v Higgs Ves Deerhurst v d of saint Alban mad bret  v sawbridge Toml p c Sug vend Appius peer William er p