In Luse v. Crispin Co., 344 S.W.2d 926 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston 1961, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Crispin agreed to sell pipe to Transcontinental Oil Company, who was to sell the pipe to Luse. See id. at 927. Crispin knew that Transcontinental intended to resell the pipe to Luse. See id. Luse, however, did not know that the pipe originated with Crispin. See id. at 928. Crispin shipped the pipe to Union City Transfer Company, the location requested by Luse, under an open bill of lading, with no reservation of title and no requirement of payment on delivery. See id. at 928, 930. Luse paid Transcontinental for the pipe, but Transcontinental did not in turn pay Crispin. See id. at 929. The transfer company, which held the pipe in its yard, brought an interpleader action against Luse and Crispin. See id. at 927. Although Luse lost in the trial court, the appellate court reversed and rendered judgment for Luse, finding that, under the circumstances, the parties contemplated that the sale was to be completed when the pipe was delivered, and title would pass to Luse upon his purchase of the pipe from Transcontinental. See Luse, 344 S.W.2d at 931. In reaching this conclusion, the court considered the following facts: (1) Crispin knew the pipe was shipped to effectuate a sale by Transcontinental to Luse; (2) payment was to be made by Luse directly to Transcontinental; (3) Crispin shipped the pipe by open bill of lading without retaining title and without requiring payment on delivery. See Luse, 344 S.W.2d at 930-31. These facts convinced the court there was no evidence Crispin did not intend for title to pass. See id. The court concluded this was "not a case of mere delivery of the pipe but delivery coupled with the indicia of title commonly relied upon by business men in their dealings, coupled with Crispin's knowledge that the pipe was being sold to Luse." Id. at 931. The court further supported its holding on the following equitable ground: Even if Crispin had the right to avoid the sale insofar as Transcontinental is concerned, a matter upon which we need not pass, it did not have such right after Luse in good faith had bought the pipe from Transcontinental and paid for it in full. If Crispin did not give to Transcontinental through the open bills of lading, through delivery to the carrier, and through delivery to the storage yard for Luse's account, title to the property, it passed to Transcontinental the unquestionable indicia of title and apparent ownership, so that in any event Luse Obtained title by virtue of an estoppel. Moreover, the law is well settled that Luse and Crispin, being equally entitled to consideration, if one of the parties must suffer loss for the failure of Transcontinental to pay Crispin for the pipe, the loss should fall upon Crispin which had full knowledge of the transaction and the means of protecting itself by the simple expedient of transporting the pipe under a shipper's order bill of lading or stipulating on the bill that delivery was to be made only upon condition of prior or concurrent payment of the purchase price. Id. at 932.