Mosty a good question, apart from the awful misprint - the table would not be created unless that was corrected!
To all those talking about select being atomic: that's nonsense. Select returns rows until it hits an error serious enough to make it stop. This error is serious enough, but it hits the error on the third row, when it has already returned 2 rows.
Of course this does point up another flaw in the question: the answer assumes that the select statement traverses the rows in a particular order; that is not an assumption that should be made, the data engine is free to process the rows in any order it likes, so the select could actually return 2 rows (which, with just these 3 rows in the table, it almost certainly will), or 1 row, or even no rows at all. People moan strongly about things that explicitly depend on order even when there are all sorts of checks built into the code to detect deviation from the expected order, so relying on an expected order without any checks, as does this answer, is crazy.