Document: 350 U.S. 485 76 S.Ct. 491 100 L.Ed. 577 George W. DOUD et al., Doing Business as Bondified Systems and Eugene Derrick, Appellants,v.Orville HODGE, Auditor of Public Accounts the State Illinois, al. No. 129. Argued Feb. 29, 1956. Decided March 26, Mr. John J. Yowell, Chicago, Ill., for appellants. William C. Wines, appellees. Justice MINTON delivered opinion Court. 1 The appellants are a partnership its agent, all residents Illinois. was engaged exclusively in business selling issuing money orders This activity to be conducted through agents who principally persons operating retail drug, hardware grocery stores. Appellant drug store proprietor, contracted with act agent sale which it issued. 2 by statute,1 has sought license regulate community currency exchanges. Section Community Currency Exchanges Act defines exchange 'any person, firm, association, or corporation, except banks incorporated under laws this National Banks organized pursuant United States, * service of, providing facilities for, cashing checks, drafts, any other evidences acceptable such exchange, fee charge consideration, his their name, (other than States Post Office orders, American Express Company order, Postal Telegraph Western Union orders), both businesses, performing one more foregoing services.'2 Subsequent sections provide licensing comprehensive regulation businesses. 3 Appellants brought suit Northern District Illinois seeking enjoin appellees, Accounts, Attorney General State's Cook County, from enforcing against them. Jurisdiction asserted 28 U.S.C. § 1331, U.S.C.A. 1331. argued that permanent injunction should issued on ground denied them equal protection violation Fourteenth Amendment Federal Constitution required obtain submit conduct order while Company, is identical excepted operation Act. Since complaint attacked validity state statute Constitution, tried before three-judge Court §§ 2281 2284, 2281, 2284. 4 heard case at length made findings fact, material portions we have set forth above. dismissed complaint, holding lacked jurisdiction determine constitutional question presented absence an authoritative determination Supreme whether exemption terms unconstitutional applied these D.C., 127 F.Supp. 853. We noted probable jurisdiction. 814, 57. 5 It clear had entertain appellants' virtue authority vested never held district court without prayer restraining enforcement grounds alleged repugnancy simply because courts not yet rendered definitive decision meaning federal constitutionality statute. 6 hold cause. error dismiss lack judgment vacated remanded it. do decide what procedures follow remand. 7 so ordered. 8 Judgment remanded. Ill.Rev.Stat., 1955, c. 16 1/2, 30—56.3. 31.

Category: 8