In Wood vs. Baron Kenyon.
After death of wife I give to my daughter Ann my whole estate, who shall hold the same as a place of inheritance to her and her children or issue forever, if she dies leaving no child or children, or if her children die without issue, then over.
[In Gigg vs. Bradley, Ellenborough.
To his daughter Sarah Knight's children to be equally divided between them, share and share alike, and to the survivor of them. Sarah Knight had two children.
A devised to B. and her children one half of my land, to C. and her children one half of my land; but if either die having no children, then the surviving daughter and children to enjoy deceased sister's part.
B. was not married when the will was made, C. was, but it did not appear whether she had children or not. Held, C. took an state tail.
[Nightingale vs. Burrell 15 Pick. Mass. Rep., 104, 115.
A testator gives house, &c., to Mrs. S.S. and her heirs, if she has any child; if not, then after her death and that of her husband, to F.M. S.S. had a child living at the date of the will, but who died four days in the lifetime of testator. Held that S.S. took an estate tail.
[Doc Dem. Jearand vs. Bunister, 7[th] Mason & Weldy Rep. 292.
[Webb. vs. Hennings, 2, Cro. James, 415.
It is admitted that in the English reports the terms "son," "issue," and "child," have been held to create an estate tail oftener than the term "children;" for the reason, as is alleged, that the former are nomen collectivum, in Florida, where the law of primogeniture is abolished, and where "children" is used in our canon of descent, instead of "issue" in the English.
[Thompson's Digest, 488, 2d. Black. chap. 14, page 208, cannons.
"Children" has received an interpretation beyond its obvious meaning, and is nomen collectivum, or synonymous with issue or descendants, and creates an estate tail.
[2d. Jarman on Wills, 730 onward.