Document: 382 U.S. 1 86 S.Ct. 34 15 L.Ed.2d 6 FAIRFAX FAMILY FUND, INC.v.CALIFORNIA. No. 124. Appeal from the District Court of California, Second Appellate District. Herman F. Selvin, for appellant. Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. Charles E. Corker, Asst. Gen., and Arthur de Goede H. Warren Siegel, Deputy Attys. appellee. Oct. 11, 1965. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted appeal dismissed want a substantial federal question. 2 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. 3 Appellant Kentucky corporation engaged in mail-order loan business thirty-two States. It has no offices, agents, employees, property California. solicits loans California residents by mail; after credit report prepared local independent contractor, application passed on appellant's officers Kentucky. If approved, check mailed borrower Because appellant failed obtain license State pay annual $200 fee, appellee sought obtained an injunction barring conducting its out-of-state small-loan until requisite was obtained. In order license, lender must display 'the financial responsibility, experience, character, general fitness * such as command confidence community warrant belief that will be operated honestly, fairly, efficiently *.' Cal.Fin. Code § 24206. 4 Our decisions have heretofore precluded exacting firm doing exclusively interstate condition entry into State. See, e. g., Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, 120 489, 7 592, 30 L.Ed. 694; Crutcher Kentucky, 141 47, 11 851, 35 649; Eli Lilly & Co. Sav-On-Drugs, 366 276, 278-289, 81 1316, 288; see also id., at 288, 289-292, 1223, 1324 (Douglas, J., dissenting). Appellee would characterize these statutes primarily regulatory nature, invoking Robertson 328 440, 66 1160, 90 1366, which majority held might exclude insurance company meet certain minimum reserve requirements designed assure insurer financially solvent. 5 But here exacts fee obtaining maintaining license. As we recognized Murdock Pennsylvania, 319 105, 112, 63 870, 87 1292: 'The power tax exercise privilege control or suppress enjoyment.' viewed one offset expenses administering licensing system itself. From California's characterization fee* it not 'defray cost purely regulations U.S., 114, n. 8, 875. (Emphasis added.) I believe this case presents important constitutional questions, note probable jurisdiction set down argument. charges imposed procedure are larger amount than reasonably necessary defray administrative involved People Fairfax Family Fund Inc., 235 Cal.App.2d 881, 884, 47 Cal.Rptr. 812, 814.

Category: 8