The opinion
DAVISON, Justice
(concurring specially)-
The statutes governing appeal procedure are an essential part of the administration of justice, whereby there will be furnished to litigants a fair and just review of the order or judgment that determined their controversy. When a party is deprived of this review because of a strict and technical interpretation of some equivocal rule of appeal procedure, he feels (in my opinion *662 rightly so) that his matter has not received its fair share of the administration of justice.
It has long been my opinion that ambiguous statutes providing the procedure to be followed in perfecting an appeal to this court should be construed, where it is reasonably possible to do so, to the end that this court may review the appellant’s contentions as to the invalidity or unjustness of the order of judgment rendered against him. To do otherwise would thwart the intent of the legislature to furnish a means by which all dissatisfied litigants may secure a determination in this court of their complaints that there was a miscarriage of justice because of error in the proceeding or action in the lower court.
My opinions in the above respects have been expressed in dissents in City of Cleveland v. Hambright, Okl., 320 P.2d 388 ; Temple v. Collings, Okl., 331 P.2d 938 ; Mitchell v. Great Western Oil and Gas Company, Okl., 347 P.2d 1039 ; Wanner v. Wanner, Okl., 350 P.2d 241 ; and Auto Convoy Company v. Smith, Okl., 351 P.2d 1053 .
For the reasons above stated, I concur in the opinion of the majority of this court.