Talbot and Rogers, as lessees, signed a valid lease for a house. Lane, the landlord, duly executed the lease and delivered possession of the premises to the lessees. During the term of the lease, Rogers verbally invited Andrews to share the house with the lessees. Andrews agreed to pay part of the rent to Lane, who did not object to this arrangement, despite a provision in the lease that provided that "any assignment, subletting, or transfer of any rights under this lease without the express written consent of the landlord is strictly prohibited, null, and void." Talbot objected to Andrews's moving in, even if Andrews were to pay a part of the rent. When Andrews moved in, Talbot brought an appropriate action against Lane, Rogers, and Andrews for a declaratory judgment that Rogers had no right to assign. Rogers' defense was that he and Talbot were tenants in common of a term for years, and that he, Rogers, had a right to assign a fractional interest in his undivided onehalf interest. In this action, Talbot will
prevail, because a cotenant has no right to assign all or any part of a leasehold without the consent of all interested parties.  prevail, because the lease provision prohibits assignment.  not prevail, because he is not the beneficiary of the nonassignment provision in the lease.  not prevail, because his claim amounts to a void restraint on alienation
Question: Talbot and Rogers, as lessees, signed a valid lease for a house. Lane, the landlord, duly executed the lease and delivered possession of the premises to the lessees. During the term of the lease, Rogers verbally invited Andrews to share the house with the lessees. Andrews agreed to pay part of the rent to Lane, who did not object to this arrangement, despite a provision in the lease that provided that "any assignment, subletting, or transfer of any rights under this lease without the express written consent of the landlord is strictly prohibited, null, and void." Talbot objected to Andrews's moving in, even if Andrews were to pay a part of the rent. When Andrews moved in, Talbot brought an appropriate action against Lane, Rogers, and Andrews for a declaratory judgment that Rogers had no right to assign. Rogers' defense was that he and Talbot were tenants in common of a term for years, and that he, Rogers, had a right to assign a fractional interest in his undivided onehalf interest. In this action, Talbot will
A. prevail, because a cotenant has no right to assign all or any part of a leasehold without the consent of all interested parties. 
B. prevail, because the lease provision prohibits assignment. 
C. not prevail, because he is not the beneficiary of the nonassignment provision in the lease. 
D. not prevail, because his claim amounts to a void restraint on alienation
Answer: