delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action was brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to recover damages for an injury suffered in Tennessee. The plaintiff, McKnett, is a resident of Tennessee. The defendant, St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company, is a foreign corporation doing business in Alabama. It pleaded in abatement that the court lacked jurisdiction, since the cause of action had arisen wholly *231 in Tennеssee and did not arise by the common law or statute of that State. The plea rested upon the limiting words оf the Act of 1907, now embodied in § 5681, Code of 1923, which declares:
“ Whenever, either by common law or the statutes оf another state, a cause of action, either upon contract or in tort, has arisen in such othеr state against any person or corporation, such cause of action shall be enforciblе in the courts of this state, in any county in which jurisdiction of the defendant can be legally obtained in the same manner in which jurisdiction could have been obtained if the cause of action had arisen in this state.”
A demurrer tо the plea was overruled; and the judgment entered thereon for the defendant was affirmed by the highest court of the State.
The courts of Alabama have, at all times, taken jurisdiction of suits between natural persоns on transitory causes of action arising in another state, even if both of the parties were non-residents of Alabama.
1
But prior to the Act of 1907, it had been consistently held, under the rule established by
Central Railroad & Banking Co.
v.
Carr,
The plaintiff contends that by rеfusing to entertain jurisdiction, the state court has denied him a right expressly conferred by Congress and guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. The defendant insists that the statute as construed is consistent with the Federal Constitution; sincе a state may determine the limits of the jurisdiction of its courts, the character of the controversies which shall be heard in them;
Anglo-American Provision Co.
v.
Davis Provision Co., No. 1,
Alabama has granted to its circuit courts general jurisdiction of the class of actions to which that here brought belongs, in cases between litigants situated like those in the case at bar. 3 The court would have had jurisdiction of the cause between these parties if the accident had occurred in Alabama. It would have had jurisdiction although the accident occurred in Tennessee, if thе defendant had been a domestic corporation. It would have had jurisdiction, although the defendant was a foreign corporation, the plaintiff a nonresident, and the accident *233 occurred in Tennessеe, if the suit had been brought for an injury suffered while engaged in intrastate commerce. Thus, the ordinary jurisdiction of the Alabama circuit court is appropriate to enforce the right against this defendant conferred upon the plaintiff by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. And its jurisdiction was invoked according to the rules of procedure prevailing in that court.
The power of a State to determine the limits of the jurisdiction of its cоurts and the character of the controversies which shall be heard in them is, of course, subject to the rеstrictions imposed by the Federal Constitution. The privileges and immunities clause requires a state to acсord to citizens of other states substantially the same right of access to its courts as it accords to its оwn citizens.
Corfield
v. Coryell, 4 Wash.C.C. 371, 381. Compare
Canadian Northern Ry. Co.
v.
Eggen,
While Congress has not attempted to compel states to provide courts for the enforcement of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act,
Douglas
v.
New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.,
Reversed.
Notes
Steen
v.
Swadley,
The conclusion seems to have been reached largely as а matter of statutory construction.
Pullman Palace Car Co.
v.
Harrison,
Compare
Western Union Telegraph Co.
v.
Pleasants,