UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

"A" MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., J. B. ADOUE, III, AND SAM R. HAYES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge:

The Government sued on behalf of the Small Business Administration against “A” (“A” Manufacturing Company, Inc.) to cover a claimed outstanding balance due on a promissory note, payable to the Bank of North Texas and guaranteed by the SBA. The note was signed by Adoue and Hayes as sureties. The SBA is the undisputed present holder of the note.

During a hearing for the appointment of a receiver arising from a motion by the Government, the District Judge appointed a receiver to determine the facts and make an accounting between the parties. His order gave the receiver the power to sell the property named therein and thereafter to make a report for confirmation of the sale. No appeal is taken from the appointment of the receiver. The order was without prejudice to the rights of the parties as to their ownership, claims of liens and the distribu tion of the proceeds. The order was entered on May 8, 1974.

On May 20, 1974 “A” filed a motion to amend the order appointing the receiver to include the requirement of an accounting prior to any sale of the property. The named receiver also filed a motion to employ an accounting firm to determine the rights of the various parties. The District Judge on May 23, 1974 granted the receiver’s motion and supplemented his order appointing the receiver to provide for seizure of the records and books of “A” by the receiver and for an accounting prior to the sale. The supplemental order gave the receiver the power to determine whether a sale would be in the parties’ best interest.

On May 29, 1974 “A” filed its motion to amend the supplemental order claiming that it was too harsh and that they would cooperate with the receiver and alternatively asking that all the records of the bank be seized as well.

On June 19, 1974, counsel for all parties met in the receiver’s office. Pursuant to their mutual agreement, the receiver notified the Court that he was filing a petition to employ an auctioneer and if no objections were received by the Court within one week an order authorizing the sale would be entered without a hearing. Copies of that letter were sent to the named counsel for each party. The receiver’s report was held by the Court until July 1, some 10 days after its receipt and well after the week’s termination. No objection was filed by any party within that time. On July 1,1974 the receiver’s report and application was approved and the appropriate order entered and filed.

The auction sale was set for 10 a. m. July 27, 1974. An auctioneering firm was employed and considerable funds were expended on advertisement of the sale.

On July 24, three weeks after the order was entered and three days before the scheduled sale, “A ’ filed a motion to suspend the sale. Its contention was that no sale could precede the accounting ordered by the Court in its supplemental order of May 23 appointing the receiver. The same day the receiver filed a report urging the Court not to postpone or cancel the planned sale. The report stated that about 10 more days would be required to fully evaluate the audit conducted by the SBA and that additional pleadings were required but that a prompt sale was imperative to avoid decreased value of the property and adverse effects on any subsequent sales if the planned one were to be aborted.

On the next day, July 25, the receiver filed a second report which contained among other findings that “A” was indebted to SBA in at least the sum of $60,000. Again, the receiver requested that the sale proceed as scheduled.

The Court, on July 26, considered all the foregoing and entered its order that the sale proceed as planned. It is from this order that “A” appeals. The sale was held as advertised. On July 30 the Court confirmed the sale acknowledging the receipt of $83,431 in proceeds. “A” also appeals from this order. We affirm.

The two questions raised by this appeal are (i) whether the orders of the District Court which required the sale of assets and the order which confirmed the same are appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2).1 And (ii) whether the District Court erred in proceeding with the sale of the property prior to the final accounting. Since the appealability of the order raises jurisdictional questions we will dispose of that first.