What is the ruling concerning an animal wounded but not definitively seized by the first hunter, when a subsequent person strikes it?

Primary text

If a person wounds an animal but does not definitively seize it, there is no liability for or benefit to that person. This is because at the time of the strike, the animal was permissible game, not owned by anyone, and the striker did not establish a right over it, as it retained its ability to escape. The established opinion holds that if the third striker kills it, the third party is liable for its value because they killed an animal owned by another (due to the previous wounding establishing a claim). This ruling presumes the initial wound was not a mortal one, evidenced by the liability being attributed to the third striker.