Davis v. Associated Fruit Co.

Holcomb, J.-

— This is an appeal from a retrial in a case reversed and remanded for that purpose, reported in 128 Wash. 239, 222 Pac. 490.

When the case went down for retrial, appellant filed an amended answer setting up, as another affirmative defense, fraud and collusion on the part of respondent with the state deputy fruit inspector, who made the inspection on the apples involved, in giving his certificate of inspection.

On the former appeal, the judgment was reversed because appellant had not been permitted to show that it had warehouses at Wenatchee and Cashmere, and none at Chelan Station…