As was true of many lines, there were minority shareowners...
the CB&Q's interest was, I believe, about 90 per cent. But until
the Q felt it was worthwhile to buy out the minority shareowners,
and for the minority shareowners to agree to a price, there was
no great urgency to merge.
Of course, many will note that Texas laws at one time required
all railroads operating in Texas to have their headquarters in Texas.
The inconvenience this caused was almost always very minor, and
easily accomodated.
One of the Santa Fe's two subsidiaries, the Panhandle & Santa
Fe, had its headquarters in Amarillo...but it also had jurisdiction
over a lot of the AT&SF's Western Lines (not Coast Lines), and
there would probably have been a Grand Division of about the same
scope whether or not the lines in Texas were a separate corporation.
The FW&DC, of course, was a Texas corporation; I don't recall
whether it ultimately owned the C&S or the C&S owned FW&DC (before
the Q bought out the minority interests.
Wes Leatherock
wleath@s...
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> I've always wondered...what were some of these legal reasons? Taxes?
>
> Thanks!
> Eric
>
> > The C&S and FW&D were interlocked to the Q by boards of directors, and were
> > regarded as part of the "Burlington Route" (and thus of the Hill Lines), but
> > for legal reasons, they were separate corporate entities.
> >
> > Marshall
|