Now, if the rules stated in the precedents were "the law" that determines the results in future cases, Case 3 would have to go the other way. The combination of the rules from Cases 1 and 2 would seem to require that Costello win. Case 2 states that a person who fraudulently acquires possession of property does not acquire ownership; Case 1 states that a person without ownership of property cannot transfer ownership to another. In Case 3, Abbott did not acquire ownership of the horse, under the rule in Case 2. By finding for Holliday, the court seems to ignore the rule stated in Case 1. It finds that Holliday owns the horse when Abbott did not. (There are many cases on the books that decide Case 3 for Holliday in jurisdictions that decide Cases 1 and 2 for Costello.)

Burton, Steven J, An Introduction to Law and …, loc. 216