This suit invоlves claims and counterclaims concerning the sale and repossession of equipment in a sprinkler irrigation system. In 1968 the plaintiff in intervention appellant Ray W. Goff changed 160 acres of *381 his Minidoka County farm from a ditch irrigation system to a sprinkler irrigation system. The defendant respondent Dwayne Draper, dba M & D Irrigation, installed the system using pipe supplied by the defendant respondent Redi-Rain Manufacturing Co., Inc., dba Redi-Rain of Idaho, and other firms. There was no written signed contract between Goff and Draper or between Goff and Redi-Rain, nor did Draper or Redi-Rain ever obtain a UCC security filing on the equipment supplied by Redi-Rain. In the spring of 1970 Draper and an agent of Redi-Rain twice went upon Goff’s farm tо repossess equipment that Redi-Rain had supplied and Draper had installed, once removing an irrigation well pump and the other time rеmoving “hand” or “lateral” lines used for irrigation sprinkling.
Goff was declared a bankrupt in the summer of 1970 and the plaintiff Larry Duff was appointed trustee of his estate. In the fall of 1971 Duff filed suit against Draper and Redi-Rain on behalf of the bankrupt’s estate, alleging that Draper and Redi-Rain had converted the irrigation equipment they had repossessed in the spring of 1970. In April of 1973 Goff petitioned to intervene in the suit, claiming he had the right to sue for conversion of the irrigation equipment because it was a fixture, and thus part of his federal homestead exemption and was thus exempt from the control of the trustee or the claims of his creditors in bankruptcy.
See Duff
v.
Draper,
The first question we must decide is: if the irrigation equipment was converted when it was repossessed, did the claim for relief pass from Goff to the trustee in bankruptcy upon Goff’s petition for bankruptcy? Section 70 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S. C.A. § 110, provides the following:
Ҥ 110. TITLE TO PROPERTY
“(a) The trustee of the estate of a bankrupt . . . upon his appointment and qualification, shall in turn be vested by operation of law with the title of the bankrupt as of the date of the filing of the petition initiating a proceeding under this title, except insofar as it is to property whiсh is held to be exempt, to all of the following kinds of property wherever located ... (6) rights of action arising upon contracts, or usury, or the unlawful taking or detention of or injury to his property; . . ”
Thus, Goff’s rights of action for conversion passed to the trustee in bankruptcy unless the convеrted property was part of the exempt property under state or federal law.
Leach v. Bank of Vollmer,
The equipment in question consisted of an irrigation pump and “hаnd” or “lateral” irrigation lines. The pump sat on a concrete foundation embedded in the ground. It was attached to the foundation
*382
by bolts and could be removed from it by loosening the bolts and by removing its coupling with an irrigation line. The “hand” or “lateral” lines were above ground lines which сould be removed from the property by uncoupling them from the subsurface lines which supplied water to them. Given these facts, there was еvidence from which the district court could conclude that these pieces of equipment were not fixtures attached to the reаlty and had retained their character as personalty and we uphold that finding.
See Beebe v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Co.,
Goff also argues that he was entitled to consequential damages to his exempt property as a result of the allegedly wrongful repossession because he was unable to raise and harvest crops from the farm in 1970 and fоr several years thereafter because he had no irrigation system to deliver water to growing crops. The district Court denied any claim fоr consequential damages. We affirm for several reasons. First, assuming that the repossession had been a conversion in violation of Goff’s rights, nevertheless, Goff did not show that the conversion left him in any different position than he would otherwise have been. Because the irrigation equipment was not exempt, the trustee in bankruptcy would have been entitled to dispose of it for the benefit of Goff’s creditors. Had the trusteе done this, Goff would have been in the same position as he was after Draper and Redi-Rain repossessed the equipment, but would not have been entitled to damages for removal of the equipment. Thus, it cannot be said the repossession caused any consequential dаmages that would not have otherwise occurred. Even if this reality is ignored, nevertheless the district court was entitled to conclude from the evidence presented at trial that Goff had not proved a case for consequential damages. Consequential damages for conversion are awarded only when lost profits have been proved with reasonable certainty.
Jolley v. Puregro Co.,
Finally, Goff appeals from the award of $1,016.44 plus interest to Draper for installation of the irrigation system. 1 The evidence shows that this was a reasonable charge for installation of the system. We uphold the award of the trial court for the installation charge plus interest dating from the time of installation.
Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondents.
Notes
. This claim was not precluded by Goff’s bankruptcy because Goff was denied a discharge in bankruptcy.