這篇論文是一篇英中民事裁判的事例研究。在這篇論文分析的事件本來發生在1902年的漢口，然後審理是在上海英國最高法庭。最終在1907年倫敦樞密院審理而宣判。這個事件就是1866年以來在華英國商人和華商繼續的關於賠償買辦個人債務責任商榷的最後形態。他們之間的商榷，從1866年以來每次金融風潮之後都發生。他們之商榷可在「字林進報」上的會審公扁平或者上海英國最高法庭裁判記錄、其聯繫的英國上海總領事館和上海道台之間外交檔案裡找到。「Tung Ta, Hung Yuen, Tsing Chong,Ye Tung-theong和Vow Cheang錢莊V.麥加理銀行」是提起來有沒有關英國企業無論甚麼條件下應該賠償其買辦的債務的責任問題的最後事件。在「Wu Yu-shan對老沙蓀洋行事件（1884）」的宣判中，上海英國最高法庭的主席法官偷偷地肯定英國企業有這樣的賠償責任。中國商業界對這次事件宣判非常憤怒。他們的想法一下子出現在同時宣判的另一件民事訴訟「老沙蓀洋行對陳蔭堂，范德盛事件」繼而在1902至07年宣判的「Tung Ta, Hung Yuen, Tsing Chong, Ye Tung-theong和Vow Cheang錢莊V.麥加理銀行」裡，中國商業界的憤怒又出現了。他們強烈的反對英國在華企業否定賠償買辦個人債務的意思，最終連倫敦樞密院主席法官也不得不贊成了。除了這件商榷過程之外，「Tung Ta, Hung Yuen, Tsing Chong, Ye Tung-theong和Vow Cheang錢莊V.麥加理銀行」的裁判記錄英國在華銀行裡服務的買辦或者跑街每天做甚麼樣的業務活動相當有關的描寫。這也是值得介紹。放在1866年以來持續的英中商業界的商榷土，這篇論文分析「Tung Ta, Hung Yuen, Tsing Chong , Ye Tung-theong和Vow Cheang錢莊V.麥加理銀行」的具體過程和內容，在倫敦樞密院主席法官的宣判有何意義。

This article is the final part of my series of articles, which deal with the struggle between British commercial firms and Chinese mercantile people, mainly their compradores, native bankers and other dealers for collecting liabilities with each other since the 1867. The series of their struggle shattered the former assumption of British economic superiority guaranteed by the extra-territorial system. While the British mercantile firms always failed to collect their liabilities from Chinese debtors, they were always forced to guarantee the debt to the Chinese merchants, even if such debt was made through the private transaction of their Chinese compradores or other employees with other Chinese merchants. This asymmetric relationship developed the peculiar Chinese short-term credit system called ＂Chop loan＂ and also the limited circumstance in which the cooperation of British mercantile firms and certain Chinese after the 1880s. The civil case dealt with in this article, which took place from 1902 to 1907, was the final attempt of the British mercantile firms to avoid guaranteeing the debt their Chinese employees made with other Chinese native bankers. Since this case was appealed to Judicial Committee of The Privy Council in London, the whole proceeding of the case was not discovered until recently. Using the records discovered in the Times and the ＂North-China Herald＂, this article attempts to recover the whole course of the case and its significance.