Improvement

An amelioration in the condition of real or personal property effected by the expenditure of labor or money for the purpose of rendering it useful for other purposes than those for which it was originally used, or more useful for the same purposes. It Includes repairs or addition to buildings,, and the erection of fences, barns, etc.; Appeal of Schenley, 70 Pa. 98; French V. New York, 16 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 220; Wimberly V. Mayberry, 94 Ala. 240, 10 South. 157, 14 L. R. A. 305; Fay v. Fay, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 93; Hartford & N. Y. Steamboat Co. v. City, 78 N. Y. 1; Nicoll v. Burke, id.

581; or a windmill; Phelps & Bigelow Windmill Co. V. Baker, 49 Kan. 434, 30 Pac. 472.

As between the rightful owner of lands and an occupant who in good faith has put on improvements, the land with its improvements belongs to the rightful owner of the land, without compensation for the Increased value at common law; Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 1, 5 L. Ed. 547; Mc Coy v. Grandy, 3 Ohio St. 463; Frear v. Ilardenbergh, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 272, 4 Am. Dec. 356; Albee v. May, 2 Paine 74, Fed. Cas. No. 134; Stewart v. Matheny, 66 Miss. 21, 5 South. 387, 14 Am. St. Rep. 538; Mull v. Graham, 7 Ind. App. 561, 35 N. E. 134; though the rule may be otherwise in equity; 3 Atk. 134; Humphreys v. Holtsinger, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 228; Nelson v. Allen, 1 Yerg. (Tenn.) 360; Murray v. Gouverneur, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 441, 1 Am. Dec. 177; Searl v. School Dist. No. 2, 133 U. S. 553, 10 Sup. Ct. 374, 33 L. Ed. 740; see Case v. Kelly, 133 U. S. 21, 10 Sup. Ct. 216, 33 L. Ed. 513; and by statute in some of the states; Baggot v. Fleming, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 451; ' Withington v. Corey, 2 N. H. 115; Strong v. Hunt, 20 Vt 614; Lamar V. Minter, 13 Ala. 31; Lombard v. Ruggles, 9 Greenl. (Me.) 62; Davis’ Lessee v. Powell, 13 Ohio 308; Bryant v. Hambrick, 9 Ga. 133; Roberts’ Heirs v. Long, 12 B. Monr. (Ky.) 195; Jeweli v. Truhn, 38 Minn. 433, 38 N. W. 106; Van Bibber v. Williamson, 37 Fed. 756; and their value may be offset to an action for mesne profits at common law; Hyltqn v. Brown, 2 Wash. C. 0.

166, Fed. Cas. No. 6,983; Jackson v. Loomis, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 168, 15 Am. Dec. 347; Dowd V. Faucett, 15 N. C. 95; Bright v. Boyd, 1 Sto. 478, Fed. Cas. No. 1,875.

A life tenant Is not entitled to payment for improvements made by him without the consent of the remaindermen; Appeal of Datesman, 127 Pa. 40 Minn. 460, 42 N. W. 852. In determining the right to recover for improvements placed on land, ordinary repairs necessary for the enjoyment of the object sold cannot be classed as Improvements; Mc Kenzie v. Bacon, 41 La. Ann.' 6, 6 South. 640. As to dower in improvements, see Doweb, and as to improvement in Patent Law, see Patent. As to improvements of streets and assessments therefor, see Assessment.