A valuable addition made to property (usually real estate ) or an amelioration in its condition, amounting to more than mere repairs or replacement of waste, costing labor or capital, and intended to enhance its value and utility or to adapt it for new or further purposes. Spencer v. Tobey, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 209; Allen v. McKay,120 Cal. 332, 52 Pac. 828; Simpson v. Robinson, 37 Ark. 132. In American land law. An act by which a locator or settler expresses his intention to cultivate or clear certain land; an act expressive of the actual possession of land; as by erecting a cabin, planting a corn-field, deadening trees in a forest; or by merely marking trees, or even by piling up a brush- heap. Burrill. And see In re Lee Tp. Road,159 Pa. 72, 2S Atl. 238; Bixler v. Baker, 4 Bin. (Pa.) 217.An ” improvement ,” under our land system, does not mean a general enhancement of the value of the tract from the occupant’s operations. It has a more limited meaning, which has in view the population of our forests, and the increase of agricultural products. All works which are directed to the creation of homes for families, or are substantial steps towards bringing lands into cultivation, have in their results the special character of ” improvements ,” and, under the land laws of the United States and of the several states, are encouraged. Sometimes their minimum extent is defined as requisite to convey rights. In other cases not. But the test which runs through all the cases is always this: Are they real, and made bona fide, in accordance with the policy of the law, or are they only colorable, and made for the purpose of fraud and speculation Simpson v. Robinson, 37 Ark. 137.In the law of patents. An addition to, or modification of, a previous invention or discovery, intended or claimed to increase its utility or value. See 2 Kent, Comm. 306-372. And see Geiser Mfg. Co. v. Frick Co. (C. C.) 92 Fed. 191; Joliet Mfg. Co. v. Dice,105 111. 050; Schwarzwaelder v. Detroit (C. C.) 77 Fed. S91; Reese’s Appeal, 122 Ta.392, 15 Atl. 807; Rheem v. Holliday, 16 Pa. 352; Allison Bros. Co. v. Allison, 144 N. Y.21, 3S N. E. 956.
« IMPROVED
