Case: DALY v. ELTON
Abbreviation: Daly v. Elton
Decision Date: 1904-11-14
Docket Number: No. 108
Citation: 195 U.S. 242
Volume: 195
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: DALY v. ELTON.
Judges: 
Pages: 242–243

Head Matter:
DALY v. ELTON.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 108.
Argued October 11, 12, 1904.
Decided November 14, 1904.
Decided on authority of Dobbins v. Los Angeles, ante, p. 223.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Lynn Helm and Mr. Edward C. Bailey, with whom Mr. Henry T. Lee, Mr. J. R. Scott and Mr. Charles W. Chase were oh the brief, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. W. B. Mathews, with whom Mr. Herbert J. Goudge was on the brief, for defendant in error.
This case was argued simultaneously with the preceding case and for abstracts of arguments, see ante, p. 226.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Day
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is practically- determined by views expressed in Dobbins v. The City of Los Angeles, just decided. It wa^ a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to discharge Daly from custody, in a prosecution under the ordinance under consideration in the Dobbins case. The prayer of- the petition was denied and the writ discharged. In re Daly, 139 California, 216. Under the California practice, in the absence of issue joined the allegations of the petition are taken as true and the facts alleged therein are taken as: admitted. In re Smith, 77 Pac. Rep. 180. The petition made allegations attacking the ordinance which, if true, would render it invalid for the reasons stated in the Dobbins case, supra, and the petitioner upon the record made should have been discharged from custody.
It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the Supreme Court of California be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views announced in ' the Dobbins case, supra.