624 FBDBBAL BBPOBTER. �It is insisted, however, on the part oi parties who Iiave com- menced suits for personal damage, and also by those who have commenced suits as administrators under the state statutes, that their claims are not liable to be eut off by a decree in this case, and that the restraining order as to them should be set aside. The question, whether a claim for per- sonal injuries is within the statuts, was carefully examined in the case of The Epsilon, ut supra, and I see no reason to dissent from the conclusion of Judge Benedict in that case. I do not understand that it is held in that case, as argued in this, that such parties cannot share in the fund, On the contrary, eo far as that point is touched upon, the opinion of the; court was to the effect that they could share in it. On the authority of that case, and on what is hereinbefore said as to the nature of these claims and the claims for damages by administrators or relatives of persons killed, I am of opin- ion that they cannot be distinguished from claims arising out of loss of cargo. It is insisted, also, that by section 4493 of Eevised Statutes damages to the person or by loss of baggage are taken out of the operation of the limited liability act. I think it is clear that this is not so, but that in any case to which section 4493 applies, in order that the owner may have the benefit of the limited liability, the damages must not have happened through any neglect or failure to comply with the regulations of the statutes relating to steam-vessels, nor through known defects of the steaming apparatus or huU. To this extent this section modifies the act, but both are re-enacted as parts of the Eevised Statutes, and there is no difficulty in giving them both their proper effect. It is very clear, also, that the provision in this section that in such cases parties injured may recover their full damages, is consistent only with the theory that, by other provisions of law, the liability to passengers for personal injury and loss of baggage was subject to some limitation. �The objections that these objecting parties are entitled to have their cases tried by a jury, and that the right is reserved to them as part of their common-law remedies by the judici- ary act, (Eev. St. § 563,) are clearly answered by the sugges- ����
