¶1joins, dissents from the foregoing order upon the following basis:
¶2Notwithstanding the fact that appellee himself obtained a 20-day extension of time in which to file affidavits in response to the motion to amend or for new trial, and notwithstanding the fact that the question of timely action upon the motion to amend or for new trial was raised by appellee in the court below and apparently rejected by the trial judge, in that he partially amended the judgment and denied the balance of the motion to amend and the motion for new trial, I readily concede that a crucial question of jurisdiction of this court exists which we must settle prior to further consideration of the appeal or ancillary matters therein.
¶3While I can agree that the partial record on appeal as filed herein shows no order of the district court extending the time for consideration of the motion to amend or for new trial, I do not agree with finding No. 3 of the order of this Court to the effect that there was no stipulation entered into by the parties, which in my opinion could be orally or by conduct.
¶4In Tranel v. Gilkey (524 P.2d 580 (1974)), by order dated March 1,1974, (not reported as an opinion of this Court) we denied a specific motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal on grounds that timely notice of appeal had not been filed. The basis for our denial was that mem-oranda submitted by the parties showed that “hearing on the motion for new trial was continued by a mutual understanding of the trial court and counsel so that provisions of Rule 59(f) were inapplica*39ble.” To me, the present order of dismissal is inconsistent with that ruling and I think we should require a showing, either by stipulation or affidavits of the parties or their counsel, of the events transpiring in the court below bearing upon the delay in hearing the motion.