Definition
Animus furandi is the Latin phrase for "intention to steal." It names the mental element required for larceny: the thief must, at the moment of taking, intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Without this intent, a taking—however wrongful—does not constitute larceny at common law.
The phrase is both a term of art and a condensed doctrinal principle. It answers the question not of what was taken, but of what was meant by the taking.
Common Confusion
Animus furandi is sometimes loosely equated with "felonious intent" as if the two phrases are perfectly interchangeable. They are functionally equivalent in most common law larceny analysis, but the Latin term carries a specific temporal charge—the intent must exist at the time of taking—that the English phrase does not always convey with the same precision. Researchers should be attentive to this distinction when the timing of intent formation is in issue.
Why It Matters in Research
Animus furandi is an essential search term when tracing the mental element of larceny through historical sources, where it appears far more frequently than modern equivalents such as "felonious intent" or "intent to steal." Researchers working in nineteenth-century treatises, English common law reporters, and early American case law will encounter this phrase routinely in larceny analysis; its modern replacements are largely prose paraphrases rather than precise substitutes.
A significant research trap: the phrase does not appear uniformly across jurisdictions or eras as a separate doctrinal element. As Bouvier notes, the common law definition of larceny folded animus furandi into the word "felonious"—so many sources discuss the concept without using the Latin term at all. Researchers conflating the presence of the phrase with the presence of the doctrine will miss substantial material.
Timing is a persistent doctrinal issue. The intent must exist at the moment of taking. Where a defendant takes property lawfully and only later forms the intent to convert it, animus furandi is typically absent at common law—and larceny does not attach. This distinction, sometimes called the "continuing trespass" problem, generated significant disagreement in English and American courts and is well-documented in nineteenth-century treatise literature. Researchers tracing that debate will find animus furandi at its center.
The phrase also surfaces in comparative discussions of larceny versus embezzlement and larceny versus false pretenses, where presence or absence of the intent at the time of the original taking marks the dividing line between offenses. These connections make animus furandi a navigational anchor for the broader common law theft taxonomy.
Historical Dictionary Support
The three shelf sources agree on the core definition without variation: animus furandi means the intention to steal, and it is necessary to constitute larceny.
Bouvier offers the most doctrinal depth. He ties the phrase directly to the common law authorities—Coke's Third Institute, Hale's Pleas of the Crown, and Blackstone's Commentaries—and makes explicit that the concept is embedded in the word "felonious" in standard larceny definitions. He also flags the timing problem: when a taking is initially lawful but the property is subsequently converted with the intent to steal, the larceny analysis changes. This observation points researchers toward a genuinely contested area of common law doctrine.
Black's entry is brief but uses the phrase to introduce the broader maxim animus hominis est anima scripti ("the intention of the party is the soul of the instrument"), connecting animus furandi to the general common law principle that mental intent animates legal instruments and acts. This contextual note is useful for researchers working across intent-related doctrine, though it slightly blurs the focus.
Burrill is the most compressed, defining the phrase as "the intention of stealing" and emphasizing the felonious design necessary to make a taking criminal. He adds nothing beyond Bouvier but confirms the consistent doctrinal consensus across the shelf.
None of the historical sources address modern statutory theft offenses, consolidated theft statutes, or the Model Penal Code's reformulation of theft elements. Researchers working with twentieth-century or contemporary material should treat the historical entries as a foundation for common law analysis, not as a guide to current statutory language.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Larceny; Mental Element in Criminal Offenses; Common Law Theft Taxonomy