It then held that such a corporation "* * * can maintain an action to adjudicate its rights in the courts of this state, which it acquired under the Constitution of the United States." [ 126 So.2d 745.] As authority for its decision the district court cited and quoted from Blackshear Mfg. Co. v. Sorey, 1929, 97 Fla. 437, 121 So. 103, 104, which case properly held that a failure of a foreign corporation to comply with the statutes of this state requiring qualification of such corporations does not preclude such corporation "* * from seeking the adjudication of its rights in the courts of this state, which it acquired under the federal Constitution or laws in interstate traffic." The effect of the district court's decision is to allow plaintiff the opportunity to prove if it can that it has a right under the federal constitution not to have the subject personal property taxed as sought to be done by the defendants.

See Commercial National Bank v. Jordan, 71 Fla. 566, 71 So. 760. Chapter 6876, Acts of 1915, so modified the Act of 1907, supra, as to make the contracts of foreign corporations valid but unenforceable until a permit to do business shall have been obtained. See Brecht v. Bur-ne Corporation, 91 Fla. 345, 108 So. 173; Blackshear Mfg. Co. v. Sorey, 97 Fla. 437, 121 So. 103; Herbert H. Pape, Inc., v. Finch, 102 Fla. 425, 136 So. 496. This modification, however, did not give foreign corporations not qualified to do business in this State any rights other than the right to enforce a contract after having qualified and the right to acquire, hold and convey property.

And in Brecht v. Bur-Ne Co., 91 Fla. 345, 108 So. 173, we held that the statute did not prevent a non-complying corporation from defending a suit brought against it. Nor does the statute prevent a foreign corporation from enforcing payment for goods sold in interstate commerce (Circular Advertising Co. v. Am. Mercantile Co., 66 Fla. 96, 63 So. 3; Blackshear Mfg. Co. v. Sorey, 97 Fla. 437, 121 So. 103) nor from acquiring title to property in this State and executing notes and mortgages as a part of the transaction by which the property was acquired in view of the amendment of 1915 (Pape v. Finch, 102 Fla. 425, 136 So. 496; Harris v. Zeuch, 103 Fla. 183, 137 So. 135). Such non-compliance does not affect the title to property acquired, held and disposed of in violation of the statute of 1907, nor the validity of any contract with such non-complying foreign corporation, and such foreign corporation may even acquire a statutory mechanics or material man's lien for performing labor and furnishing material for the construction of a building in this State, which lien is subsequently enforceable by it in the courts of this State after it has qualified under the statute.

In holding the defense to be an insufficient bar to the action, the Supreme Court said: Blackshear Mfg. Co. v. Sorey, 97 Fla. 437, 121 So. 103, 104. "The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the additional plea.

The sole issue submitted to the lower court was the right of plaintiff to maintain this action in view that it was a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in the state of Florida and not complying with Section 613.01, Florida Statutes 1959, F.S.A. The Supreme Court of Florida has held in the case of Schwartz v. Frango Corp., Fla. 1950, 44 So.2d 292, that compliance with the said statute was not required where the action involved an interstate transaction, but in the case at bar the question is whether the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, not qualified to do business in Florida can maintain an action to adjudicate its rights in the courts of this state, which it acquired under the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of Florida in the case of Blackshear Mfg. Co. v. Sorey, 97 Fla. 437, 121 So. 103, 104, held that: "The statute, which requires a foreign corporation to comply with certain requirements before it shall be authorized to transact business in this state, does not preclude a foreign corporation, which has not complied with the statute, from seeking the adjudication of its rights in the courts of this state, which it acquired under the federal Constitution or laws in interstate traffic."