However, this approach had been rejected by the two other judges in the Court of Appeal. Lord Esher's attempt to reintroduce the principle in further obiter remarks in "Le Lievre v Gould", in which he stated that "Heaven" only established that there may be a duty even if there is no contract and that this duty arose if there was proximity between the parties, was also unsuccessful. Two cases from the New York Court of Appeals, "Thomas v. Winchester" and "MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.", were also influential in the formation of the neighbour principle. In "Thomas", Thomas had purchased and administered belladonna to his wife after it was mislabelled by Winchester, the dealer, although not the seller, of the treatment as extract of dandelion. Thomas' wife became seriously ill as a consequence and Thomas successfully claimed in negligence; Winchester's behaviour had created an imminent danger which justified a finding of a duty of care. This principle was relied on in "MacPherson", in which a car wheel collapsed, injuring MacPherson. The manufacturer was sued in negligence and the court held that manufacturers could owe their ultimate consumers a duty of care in limited circumstances. "If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of the consequences to be expected. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests, then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully ... If he is negligent, where danger is to be foreseen, a liability will follow." Lord Atkin used the concept of legal neighbours in an address to the University of Birmingham's Holdsworth Club on 9 May 1930, in which he commented that "the man who swears unto his neighbour and disappointeth him not is a person commended by the law of morality, and the Law enforces that by an action for breach of contract". On 28 October 1931, just over one month before he heard "Donoghue", Lord Atkin also used the principle in relation to defamation, perjury, fraud and negligence in a lecture at King's College London. "[A man] is not to injure his neighbour by acts of negligence; and that certainly covers a very large field of the law. I doubt whether the whole law of tort could not be comprised in the golden maxim to do unto your neighbour as you would that he should do unto you."